Jane's Random Thoughts and Other Stuff: April 2010

Today I was incredibly angry and saddened listening to our President. I am outraged by this statement by President Obama, who told a crowd in Iowa: "Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed -- that's something that could potentially happen ... That's not the right way to go."

He omitted a cornerstone of the new law, specifically the fact that law-enforcement personnel cannot just randomly stop and ask anyone about their immigration status. Here is the exact language: "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

And, here is the federal law that proscribes that aliens in the US legally are issued documents that must be carried with them at all times. "Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), aliens are issued registration cards and must carry such cards with them at all times. Aliens who gain entry without the requisite inspection, and who therefore are not issued such cards, violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Consequently, a law enforcement officer confronting an alien who is unable to produce documentation arguably has probable cause to believe that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) (failure to possess documents or 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (entry without inspection) has occurred. (If the alien is undocumented and has been in the United States for longer than 30 days, he or she has also violated 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a)).

I hope you bear with me here. I do not understand our President's criticism of the law and seeming attempt to flame feelings of anger in parts of our population; isn't he sworn to uphold the laws of the United States? And, isn't he a person who claimed he wanted to be a "uniter" instead of a divider? Here are my thoughts on why he would have said this; none of them make any sense to me:

1. Did he read the actual law? If not, why did he claim that people could be harrassed by taking their children out for ice cream? Where did this notion come from?

2. If he did read the law (it's quite readable and not difficult to understand), how could he have missed the clear language that does not allow officers to ask about immigration status unless they are already in "lawful contact" with a person? He is a well-educated and intelligent man--misunderstanding the law seems highly unlikely.

3. If he read the law and then purposely omitted pertinent information to make it upsetting to people, what was his purpose?

All of these scenarios are quite distressing. We are a nation of laws, which is what makes us civilized and able to live peacefully together. We can't selectively enforce our laws, or all of our laws are weakened. Other countries do not allow illegal immigration, and they mete out harsh penalties for violating their laws; they also don't allow political speech by non-citizens. Why are we intimidated and shamed into cowardice? We are not a racist country--far from it. Our nation will be able to come together as a people again only when we stop using that argument and can be reasonable in our discourse. We should all want our country to succeed so we can continue to enjoy the freedom and blessings our founding fathers envisioned--and we can continue to welcome new-comers who come here for the dream and promise of a better life.

I stand behind our governor in this law, and I hope that the rest of the country will at least read the laws for themselves and think this through without the opinions of others obscuring the facts.

If anyone's interested in the facts about Arizona's new illegal immigration law (SB1070), here is a link to the law itelf, followed by the federal law that Arizona's law is upholding:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01918.htm
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Please study these laws for yourself before making a judgment. The media certainly seems to be biased against Arizona's new law--I'm not seeing any positive news stories about this. WHY NOT?! Arizona has a severe problem with human and drug smuggling. Violence accompanies both of these activities, and Phoenix was recently talked about as the kidnapping capital of the US. Our law enforcement officers need all the resources they can get to protect the law-abiding citizens of Arizona and the United States.