Washington (CNN) -- Police chiefs from about a dozen cities are scheduled to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today to talk about concerns they have with Arizona's new immigration law. The group includes police chiefs from Phoenix (Police Chief Jack Harris) and Tucson (Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor) in Arizona; Los Angeles, California; and Houston, Texas.The chiefs will tell Holder that they worry the new law will "drive a wedge" between the community and police, and damage the trust that officers have worked to build "over many years," according to a statement by the group. Arizona's law allows officers to check the residency status of anyone who is being investigated for a crime or possible legal infraction -- if there is reasonable suspicion the person is an illegal resident.
(Extremist) Proponents say Arizona need the law to crack down on the illegal immigration problem in the state. Critics have said the law will promote racial profiling. The law has received extreme backlash since it was passed in April.
Critics of the law have conducted several protests marches. The ACLU and a coalition of civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. Cities have contemplated boycotting Arizona because of the law to put economic pressure on the state. The group attending Wednesday's meeting also comprises of chiefs of police from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Jose, California; Salt Lake City, Utah; Sahuarita, Arizona; Montgomery County, Maryland; and the president of Arizona's Association of Chiefs of Police. After the meeting Wednesday, the group will hold a news conference.
This is very good news. The Chiefs of Police will bring SANITY back to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe extremists who support the bill can go back into their hiding places once this bill is buried, where it belongs!
I am no expert on policing but it seems to me that the chiefs are protesting too much. They should be back home explaining to the Hispanic community that they have nothing to fear if they are legal and that if they wish to be safe in their homes they should continue to cooperate with the police. They could even arrange for a city ID that is issued if a person can prove his immigration status. They should also be telling them that if they have overstayed their visas they are just hurting their citizen neigbors and need to be on their way home.
ReplyDeleteThe police are notoriously lazy and just don't want anything more dumped on their plates especially with a law like Arizona's. My gosh they might even have to do their duty or be sued.!
No need to go into hiding. The majority of Americans support the Arizona bill (see the latest NBC news poll). It seems like the police are on the wrong side of this issue if the American people support AZ.
ReplyDeleteUltima,
ReplyDeleteThe chiefs know their jobs. They have detailed out to Eric Holder how incorrect sb1070 is and how it will deter them from doing the actual jobs...capturing felonious criminals!
Ultima,
ReplyDeleteWrong Again!
The Majority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT the bill.
The Majority of THOSE POLLED do not support the bill.
Polls are a snapshot in time.
Incidently, when they poll Latino Voters, the numbers are +90% against the bill!
Dee here are actual figures from the poll 61% strongly support or somewhat support the Arizona law while only 36% strongly or somewhat oppose. These figures are the same ones used by Brian Williams on NBC news this evening. I don't know what poll you are looking at but you are wrong about the NBC 5/23 poll.
ReplyDeleteI understand what the police chiefs are saying and I agree with them that their first job is deter crime and capture criminals. But they are making a mountain out of a molehill. If they do their job well, no one is going to sue them. If they show that when they are not doing anything else, they are taking a look at suspected illegals, everyone will approve and say that's what we had in mind. Similarly, if in the course of their other duties they have occasion to stop someone for some other infraction, what is more logical than to ask for ID that proves their immigration status. That doesn't take any longer than it does to check a drivers license. I'll bet the police officers if polled would not back up their chiefs, and would not be diverted from their primary tasks. This is just another red herring. What they should be saying to Holder and Napo is "get some more ICE resources down here, embed them in our police stations and operations, so we can quickly turn over any illegals we encounter to them without diverting us from our primary duties. We understand they can't do the job without our help and we are willing to provide that help as long as it doesn't unduly interfere with our primary role.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if illegal presence were a felony committed against state law, then apprehending the offenders would be a job for the police. However, I would expect that they would still focus their resources on violent criminals and those committing crimes against property. I'm sure the police are already criticized regularly for their failure to stop the drug trafficking and the violent gangs many of whose members are Latinos, some legal some not.
Please correct your comment about my error. Refer to question #18 in the PDF version of the poll or just look at a video of NBC Nightly news.
ReplyDeleteNBC is running a series on immigration this week on its Nightly News. They had Brian Williams' counterpart from Telemundo on the series tonight. He clearly understands the problem.
ReplyDeleteUtah is one of the states that is considering a law like Arizona's. There was an interview with a contractor who complained about the unfair competition from miscreant employers who hire illegals. Where is your sympathy for him and others whose businesses have suffered because they are following the law.
The basic question in this entire area of immigration reform is how can we get the Hispanic community on board with the rest of the citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe writer of the article about this poll made an interesting point when he pointed out that the opponents of Hispanic brand immigraton reform have not had the opportunity to put questions they formulate before the public. If they were, the 61% favoring the AZ law might go even higher and some of the other responses would surely change once the public understood there are other alternatives that have not been mentioned. See my blog to read more about this.
Ultima,
ReplyDeleteActually there was a slight typo in my earlier message. Here is how it should have read as below. The KEY word being POLLED. I wrote about the majority of those POLLED saying they support the bill. Of course they haven't READ it. Plus they are NOT Latinos being Polled.:
Ultima,
Wrong Again!
The Majority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT the bill.
The Majority of THOSE POLLED do support the bill.
Polls are a snapshot in time.
Incidently, when they poll Latino Voters, the numbers are +90% against the bill!
Ultima,
ReplyDeleteI saw Jose Diaz Balart on MSNBC today. He was reporting neutrally, as a journalist, interviewing both the ANTI and the PRO. That is what anchors do, except on Fox.
Regarding my blog: I report the facts neutrally. I do support CIR, which is a middle of the road, common sense recommendation for our broken immigration processes. Unlike any extremists, I speak civilly to both sides and I do not use profanity. I am forced to moderate my blog because I have radical ANTIs who use profanity, go off topic, try to hijack my blog and comment 24/7.
Only the extremists support Mass Deportation or racial profiling bills like sb1070. Quite honestly Ultima, I do not believe either Mass Deportation or sb1070 will ever be enacted. The basic question is, how do we get the extremists to understand Mass Deportation will NEVER occur and the Latino citizens in our country will never abide by Operation Wetback 2010 (sb1070).
Actually I do think about the Contractors and the fact they cannot compete with exploitive contractors that hire and abuse undocumented workers. The problem is these employers have never been sanctioned or sufficiently punished for their crimes. Why is that? AZ enacted a stiff law that was supposed to hold employers accountable, but sheriff joe never went after them. Instead he staked out latino neighborhoods and terrorized little girls during their Confirmation ceremonies. Why is that?
ReplyDeletePilgrims Pride, Swift, Armour and several Meat/Poultry plants were swept by ICE during the Bush years. They swept away countless workers and put them in heinous crony owned Detention Centers for months and years, yet not one of these employers was punished or held accountable. They hired and exploited hundreds of workers. After the sweeps they cried crocodile tears saying "we didn't know they were illegal." To that I say: BULL CRAP! They knew. Their fellow workers were the ones that reported them. Of course they knew. In some cases, ICE found out because the exploited workers tried to join a union for protection and the company itself called ICE on the workers, this even they were the ones that provided the workers the false documents. This is what happened at Agriprocessors. However it was the Latino community/blogosphere that was outraged and demanded Employer sanctions and punishment.
Ultima, for 100+ years we have utilized the sweat and hard worker of our neighbors from the south to Nation Build and to rebuild after catastrophes like Katrina and now the Gulf Oil Spill. We USED them for the most difficult jobs, including AgJobs and the meat packing jobs. Then we Kick Them out after we've used them up.
The question you should ask is, if you don't want them here, why are we constantly begging to bring them here when we need their sweat and muscles? Why are employers hiring them? If employers are not supposed to hire them, why aren't sheriffs (even arpaio) arresting them? THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.
So don't ask me about the employer who has to compete with companies that hire undocumented workers. Instead ask yourself, why aren't the employers being punished! Ever!
You make some good points, Dee. I have stated many times that I am in favor of sanctioning employers of illegals and one of the reasons they aren't is because there is a loophole, perhaps even in the Arizona law, wich consists of the words "knowlingly hires". All employers have to say is, "I didn't know" and the judge will let them off the hook every time because there is no way to prove they knew even though it is obvious. That is why E-verify is essential to do what we both want done -- punish the employers. They no longer will be able to use that loophole because the system will tell them who is and who is not illegal without any racial profiling. This should appeal to anyone who wants this problem solved.
ReplyDeleteWe do not agree on sanctioning employees but I think that would be the logical concommitant of employers sanctions in any balanced approach. Perhaps, in some sense, if E-verify identifies miscreant employers it will at the same time deny jobs to illegal aliens. That is an important sanction but maybe not enough. We need some help finishing the fence on the border and illegal aliens is a logical source for that labor and as a token punishment for violating our borders. Six months and they are out of here!
Heres a quote from SB 1070 which contains the loophole I mentioned above.
ReplyDelete"Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
7 23-212. employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;
8 false and frivolous complaints; violation;
9 classification; license suspension and revocation;
10 affirmative defense
11 A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If,
12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a
15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the
16 labor, the employer violates this subsection."
This is similar to the loophole contained in previous federal CIR bills. Employers will be hard to prosecute unless they are held accountable for the status all of their employees. They have access to E-verify even where it is not mandatory so if I were a judge "the knowingly loophole" wouldn't work with me but that doesn't seem to be the case in the real world so we need to work to tighten up that language if you are serious about identifying and punishing miscreant employers.
Dee wrote, "The KEY word being POLLED. I wrote about the majority of those POLLED saying they support the bill. Of course they haven't READ it. Plus they are NOT Latinos being Polled."
ReplyDeleteI still don't get your point. Surely, you realize that there has been ample publicity about 1070 so that everyone who responded except those who said, "Not Sure" has a good idea of what they were voicing an opinion on. They, like Holder, may not have read the bill in its entirety but they certainly have a good understanding of the more controversial parts of the bill. So I again I say, I don't know what your point is. Are you saying you have direct and personal knowledge that those who responded to this poll had not read the bill or did not fully comprehend its portent? That would be quite amazing since the respondents are anonymous.
Now let's take a look at your other allegation that Hispanics were not polled. By definition a statistically valid poll must assure that every adult in the U.S. has an equal chance of being called or polled. If there are 50 million Hispanics in the U.S., they would be included in that opoulation if they are adults.
ReplyDeleteThe margin of error for the 700 adults polled was +-3.7% for the 300 Hispanics polled +-5.66% because of the smaller sample. Didn't you say no Hispanics were polled???
Referring to question 17, 61% of adults strongly or somewhat support SB 1070 and 36 strongly or somewhat oppose the bill. These figures are all adults including Hispanics. If we look only at Hispanics, we see 31% who strongly or somewhat support the law and 65%who strongly or somewhat oppose the law. Now, there is no point in quarreling about the the poll -- it is what it is. I think the CNN poll shows similar results but I won't take the time to quote those results here since my original post related to the NBC poll.
Dee asks, "If employers are not supposed to hire them, why aren't sheriffs (even arpaio) arresting them? THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION."
ReplyDeleteI believe I answered that above and in another post in which I related a local court case of an employer who had sued another because he had an unfair advantage because he hired illegals. I will try to find that case again and post it on my blog to show you what the clean contractors and also the police are up against. Even under the Arizona law, since it has this loophole, it's not that easy to prosecute miscreant employers.
ISSA - Cleaning Industry News NewsMay 24, 2010 ... CO Janitorial Firm Did Not Knowingly Hire Illegals, Judge Rules ... The Finishing Touch Janitorial Service in a Boulder County, CO, lawsuit filed ... After losing the bid for 2008, Blacker filed complaints on the federal ...
ReplyDeletewww.issa.com/?m=news&event=view&type=&id...1... - Cached