{"id":11638,"date":"2010-05-01T17:58:50","date_gmt":"2010-05-01T17:58:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/05\/01\/more-on-immigration-law-arizona-house-bill-2162-response-to-reppert\/"},"modified":"2010-05-01T17:58:50","modified_gmt":"2010-05-01T17:58:50","slug":"more-on-immigration-law-arizona-house-bill-2162-response-to-reppert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/05\/01\/more-on-immigration-law-arizona-house-bill-2162-response-to-reppert\/","title":{"rendered":"More on Immigration Law: Arizona House Bill 2162. Response to Reppert"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2162 which modifies and clarifies <\/font>SB 1070<\/font><\/a> which was signed into law the week before.  Here is a passage from 1070 which is constantly misrepresented in the liberal press, including the Arizona Republic<\/em> newspaper:<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY <\/span><\/span>OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS <\/span>STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS <\/span> <\/span>UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, <\/span> <\/span>WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. (lines 20-26, p. 1)<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The misrepresentors leave out (intentionally?) the bit about 'lawful contact.'  Where the bill has 'lawful contact,' the <\/font>1070 fact sheet<\/font><\/a> has 'legitimate contact.'  It amounts to the same: lex, legis<\/em>, is Latin for 'law.'  Now 'lawful contact' would naturally be interpreted to refer to contact between a law enforcement officer and a person during the course of a traffic stop and similar situations where a law has been broken.  Victor Reppert, in <\/font>his response to me<\/font><\/a>, makes a good point.  Because 1070 makes it a state<\/em> crime to be an illegal alien, "it would seem to me that any attempt to determine whether the crime of being here illegally had been committed would constitute a legitimate [lawful] contact. "  Whether or not this is so, <\/font>the house bill <\/font><\/a> provides clarification of 'lawful contact' and removes Reppert's worry:<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

B.  For any lawful contact<\/span><\/span><\/span> stop, detention or arrest<\/span><\/span> made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state<\/span><\/span> where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who<\/span><\/span><\/span> and <\/span><\/span>is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.  Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.  The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to United States code section 1373(c).  A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely<\/span><\/span><\/span> consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Note, in the first sentence, the phrase 'any other law.'  That refers to all laws other than the one the house bill is clarifying.  That ought to satisfy Reppert. I granted that his point was a good one, even though it is the sort of point that would occur only to a philosopher or a lawyer, not to an law enforcement agent. Note also that the somewhat vague 'contact' has been replaced by 'stop, detemntion, or arrest.'<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Reppert writes,<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

In the example Vallicella uses, the person has been pulled over for a missing tail light, and, as a matter of routine, is asked for his driver\u2019s license. At that point, if the person fails to produce a license, speaks no English, and can\u2019t produce registration or proof of insurance, the officer might then have reasonable suspicion for checking papers and attempting to determine immigration status. Now he doesn\u2019t mention the role of skin color in determining whether the inquiry is made, nor does he mention whether or not he thinks I should be expected to produce immigration papers if I were similarly stopped, although, of course, I can speak English. Or, what if a German were stopped, who doesn\u2019t speak English but only German? <\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

First the case of the German.  Given Reppert's stipulations, it is reasonable for the officer to ask to see the German's passport or visa.  If he has a visa, or his passport is appropriately stamped, then no problem, or at least no problem with respect to immigration status.  In the case of Reppert or someone of his appearance and speech patterns, you prosecute him for the crime of driving without license, registration, and proof of insurance, and in the course of so doing you run a background check part of which will reveal whether he is in the country legally.  <\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Suppose the cop pulls over a car with a missing tail light.  The Hispanic driver fails to produce license, registration, proof of insurance.  The cop shines his Maglite into the car and sees three Hispanics with back packs huddling on the floor.  <\/font><\/span><\/span>What will Reppert say to this case?  You know what common sense will say: this is a clear case where an inquiry into immigration status is more than justified.<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You will have noticed that 'solely' in the last sentence of the last quoted passage has been struck.  But how could race, color, or national origin have nothing<\/em> to do with the justifiability of an inquiry into immigration status in a state in which there is an estimated one half million illegal aliens, the vast majority of them Hispanic?  How could that not justifiably<\/em> be a factor in a decision whether to inquire into immigration status?  A factor, not the only one of course.  Compare the German and the Hispanic.  Which is more likely to be an illegal alien?  Will you hesitate over that question?  Do have common sense?<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Here is another example to test your level of common sense.  You are walking down the street in a somewhat rough neighborhood. Strutting toward you like they own the place are five strapping black youths in gansta apparel.  On the other side of the street, an 8o year old Jewish gentleman approaches, yarmulke on his head, chess set under one arm, Moses Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed<\/em> under the other.  He's headed for the Insufficient Grounds<\/em> coffee house to talk and play chess with his crony, Shlomo.<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Which side of the street do you want to be on?  Will you perhaps cross over?  If you are packing heat, will you consider how you would engage the old man should he pull an Uzi from behind his long beard?  Or will you worry about the Glock 9mms that could be hidden in the capacious pockets of those baggy pants?  Suppose a rape has occurred.  Would you consider the 80year old Jewish chessplayer to be as likely a suspect as one of the 20 year old black youths?<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Do you have common sense?<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n


<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2162 which modifies and clarifies SB 1070 which was signed into law the week before.  Here is a passage from 1070 which is constantly misrepresented in the liberal press, including the Arizona Republic newspaper: FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR … Continue reading “More on Immigration Law: Arizona House Bill 2162. Response to Reppert”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32,153,56,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-affairs","category-morality-and-legality","category-politics","category-race"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11638\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}