(San Francisco) City workers banned from official travel to Arizona

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It's unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=62275&tsp=1

[Earth_First]

1. Help me understand how this does anything to affect immigration...?

:shrug:

[virgogal]

2. It doesn't. It's plain,old-fashioned grandstanding.

[wtmusic]

7. So "grandstanding" got MLK's birthday restored as an AZ holiday in the 80s?

I knew there was a word for it!

[FailureToCommunicate]

8. It was actually the 1990's but... your point is correct...that "grandstanding" ("boycotts") work.

[wtmusic]

10. Thanks for correction. nt

[intheflow]

3. Say there's a librarian convention in Phoenix.

Normally, maybe 2-3 San Fancisco librarians would go down and add their money to Arizona's tourist economy. It's not a huge amount, but those are hotels that don't get rooms booked that night, restaurants that don't get as many patrons, etc. Tourism dollars go down, and it can be directly traced to this crappy legislation. If every major city adopted this, Arizona would lose big bucks.

[EFerrari]

13. This law isn't about immigration. It does nothing to solve "immigration".

The ban is in support of the boycott and it's called solidarity.

[xultar]

4. I applaud this move. I hope more mayors do the same. Why should their employees

be subjected to requests for papers when they travel in the US?

BRAVO.

[MrsMatt]

15. St Paul mayor, Chris Coleman

(no relation to Norm) did so today.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_14976516?nclick_check=1

on edit - sorry, but I linked to the St Paul Pioneer Press, which is a conservative paper. Don't read the comments.

[The_Commonist]

5. Apparently, the Mexican government issued a travel alert...

http://cbs11tv.com/local/immigation.illegal.immigrant.2.1660120.html

"MEXICO CITY (AP) - The Mexican government warned its citizens Tuesday to use extreme caution if visiting Arizona because of a tough new law that requires all immigrants and visitors to carry U.S.-issued documents or risk arrest.

"And a government-affiliated agency that supports Mexicans living and working in the United States called for boycotts of Tempe, Ariz.-based US Airways, the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Phoenix Suns until those organizations rebuke the law."

A city here, a country there, pretty soon it adds up to some serious tourist dollars being lost.

[skepticscott]

6. I realize it's the newspaper's statement and not yours

but I don't recall seeing anything in the statute that "directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally."

Here's the part of the new law that has everyone in an uproar:


B. 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).

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

As the statute reads (unless I'm missing some other part of it), police are directed to check the immigration status of people they come into contact with when there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally, and to arrest them if it turns out that they are. Plenty of problems there, certainly, not the least being what the heck triggers "reasonable suspicion" other than Hispanicness, but it does a lot more harm than good to misrepresent the law as requiring things that it doesn't.

[MrSlayer]

9. It's right there in what you pasted.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. What offense causes anyone to be exiled or deported other than being an illegal alien? Therefore anyone suspected of being an illegal alien may be arrested without a warrant. What is probable cause in this case other than simply looking like a Hispanic person?

[skepticscott]

11. The problem is

that "probable cause" as stated in the statute is not the same as "suspicion" as stated in the article. And a legal immigrant or visitor can also be sent home if they don't behave, under certain circumstances. The law, unfortunately, is inexcusably vague about this and a great many other things.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. ?????

B. 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).

QUESTION: So how does one "suspect" that someone is an alien? What criteria exists to have a "suspicion" outside of having witnessed the person coming across the border illegally without papers or having obtained prior info gathered from authorities who may have raided a business that was discovered (via warrant-obtained evidence of fraudulent documents, etc) to have illegals among their employees?

Would the criteria be a person having an accent and/or someone who "can't speak English", which is about the only nonsensical argument that knuckle-draggers eventually spout when they realize that they can't simply use the person's physical appearance as the criteria.

ANSWER: There is NO criteria that would not violate the Constitution, and this draconian 21st century version of the various iterations of the "Fugitive Slave Act" and its related statues, will go the way of its similar predecessors.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in part stated:

SEC. 3. And be it also enacted, That when a person held to labor in any of the United States, or in either of the Territories on the Northwest or South of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other part of the said States or Territory, the person to whom such labor or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labor, and to take him or her before any Judge of the Circuit or District Courts of the United States, residing or being within the State, or before any magistrate of a county, city, or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such Judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such State or Territory, that the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the State or Territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such Judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent, or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labor to the State or Territory from which he or she fled.

In either case, the person is presumed guilty and must prove innocence.

An untold number of free African-Americans were profiled because they didn't look like Europeans. And thus during a long era of terror, despite being forced to carry and produce manumission papers or some proof of birth in a free state, many were still duly arrested in non-slave states by conniving and lying SOBs, and hauled to parts unknown, right into slavery.

[skepticscott]

14. I didn't say that there wasn't a lot wrong with this law

and if you'd bothered to read above, you'd have seen that I pointed out exactly the problem you raised. My post 11 above was only addressing section E, in which an arrest requires "probable cause" to believe that a person has committed a "public offense" which is more than simply "suspicion". What constitutes a "public offense" is another vagueness of the law, but the simple condition of being in the country illegally doesn't qualify.

My point in #6 was that the newspaper's statement misrepresents the law, because nowhere does it "direct local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally."

Next time, you'd do well to read before you rant.