• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Mexico Issues Arizona Travel Advisory

arizona-welcome-signMexico is fighting back at an Arizona crackdown aimed at illegal aliens.

Mexico’s government is warning its citizens about travel to Arizona because of a tough new immigration law there.

The travel alert from the Foreign Relations Department urges Mexicans in Arizona to “act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws.”

It says that the law’s passage shows “an adverse political atmosphere for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors.”

It says that once the law takes effect, foreigners can be detained if they fail to carry immigration documents. While enforcement details are not yet clear, the alert says “it should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment.”

Emphasis mine.  And he’s right, of course.  Assurances about racial profiling and probable cause aside, Arizona’s law makes things tougher for people who look Mexican, especially if they’re poor or poorly dressed.

The city of San Francisco, amusingly, is considering a boycott of Arizona as well. We’ll see how much this hurts Arizona.

Advisories telling Mexicans to “respect the framework of local laws” are likely to be well received, in any case, despite the ominous undertone.

Related Posts:

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He earned a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. BigFire says:

    It’s always funny when Mexico complain about US immigration laws as they have a God given right to intrude on other country’s sovereignty.

    Woe be onto you if you’re a Guatemalan illegal alien in Mexico. They’d declare war on US if we did to Mexican what they did to Guatemalan.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. LaurenceB says:

    There seems to be a misconception among those who support this new law in Arizona that it affects only illegals and/or immigrants when they are suspects in crimes.

    The truth, however, is that the law concerns all contacts (witnesses, victims, etc.) in any legal interaction. As the law is written, even if you are a US citizen you will be required to prove your citizenship if there is a reasonable suspicion that you may be illegal. (And no one yet has been able to explain how that would be determined without racially profiling).

    So, will there be racial profiling? The answer is actually very easy. If you are a white Arizonan who never feels obligated to carry around your birth certificate should you be stopped for speeding, then you can be sure the law is being implemented along racial lines. Either it will affect you, or it will be profiling – one or the other. That’s the bottom line.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. There seems to be a misunderstanding among people who oppose this law about what its intent is. Let me be clear. The intent is to catch illegal aliens, 95% of whom are Mexicans. If you are a US citizen, you should have no problem proving your citizenship. So will there be racial profiling? Yes, because 95% of illegal immigrants are Mexicans and they all share a common skin color. And this is the best use of limited police resources in order to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

    To those who oppose a solution because some people might be inconvenienced somewhere, somehow, I applaud your ability to make sure that illegal immigration continues, and that the rape trees and murdered ranchers proliferate. Their blood is on your hands.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Anderson says:

    The city of San Francisco, amusingly, is considering a boycott of Arizona as well.

    I believe the law’s supporters will regard that as a bonus.

    If you are a US citizen, you should have no problem proving your citizenship.

    Really? Will a driver’s license work? Assuming that I drive?

    Americans do not typically walk around their own country expecting to have to prove their citizenship to any cop with too much spare time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Michael Reynolds says:

    It’s always funny when Mexico complain about US immigration laws as they have a God given right to intrude on other country’s sovereignty

    .

    Given that this is all land we stole from Mexico you might want to tone down your high dudgeon. This is conquered land, land we took by means of a pretext and ensuing war. That doesn’t mean it isn’t ours now, or that we don’t have a right to enforce our laws, but probably we shouldn’t be copping too much of an attitude.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  6. floyd says:

    Since when was “Hispanic” a race?
    Is it only since race baiting garners privilege?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. floyd says:

    micheal;
    So you stole land from Mexico….THIEF![lol]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Davebo says:

    So now you need either a passport or birth certificate when travelling through Arizona.

    What’s next? A Visa requirement?

    Oh well, my rule of thumb is that anyplace an American is required to get a Visa for is probably not a place I’d want to visit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. I have read the law, and an AZ driver’s license is adequate identification, amongst other possible IDs.

    However, the law is going to lead to harassment of legal immigrants and citizens. The assumption that the police will have the ability to discern legals from illegals is magical thinking at best.

    And as per the post: if I was a Mexican national, I would certainly reconsider a vacation to Arizona.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. TangoMan says:

    “it should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment.”

    Joyner: Emphasis mine. And he’s right, of course.

    Someone’s been reading leftist agitprop and actually buying into it.

    This law has been written with an eye to withstanding judicial review. It specifically mandates that police must have lawful contact with the person before they can request proof of immigration status. This means that they police can’t willy nilly walk up to someone and demand identification. There must be some legal justification that warrants the police having contact with the person.

    The details of this law directly contradict the message from the Mexican Government, specifically the part where they assert “questioned for no other reason at any moment” and it doesn’t make you look very thorough when you lend support to an erroneous Mexican piece of propaganda by declaring “And he’s right, of course.” There is no “of course” about it and there is nothing correct about this smear.

    I’d suggest a correction

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. TangoMan says:

    However, the law is going to lead to harassment of legal immigrants and citizens. The assumption that the police will have the ability to discern legals from illegals is magical thinking at best.

    Ignorant savages often look upon things that they don’t understand as arising from the realm of magic. The fact that they proclaim something to be the result of magic doesn’t, you know, actually make it so.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. An Interested Party says:

    Without examining identification papers of some kind, how exactly does one discern a legal from an illegal immigrant? I’m sure ignorant savages everywhere would like to know…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Steve Verdon says:

    However, the law is going to lead to harassment of legal immigrants and citizens. The assumption that the police will have the ability to discern legals from illegals is magical thinking at best.

    Absolutely. And not just people who are latino. My wife is filipino but looks quite a bit like a latina. I can see her getting harassed if she were to travel there. In fact, I think I’ll point out this new law to her since she does want to go see the Grand Canyon with our son.

    Best strategy when the police are involved, keep quiet, don’t piss ’em off, and get away as quickly and you can without arousing suspicion. After all, most cops think contemp of cop is against the law.

    Tangoman,

    Gonna have to disagree with you. “lawful contact” is pretty much a given for any police officer. I’d suggest you trundel on over to Radley Balko’s site and look at stuff cops do and get away with. That bar is laughable low. For example, look at the U. Maryland beat down a student got. Story goes like this:

    studuent: those cops just beat the hell outta me for no reason.
    cops: disorderly conduct, obstruction, blah, blah, blah.
    youtube video of bystanders: cops suddenly beating the hell outta the student for no reason.

    Look at the police officers in the Cheye Calvo incident. Burst into his home waving a bunch of fire arms. Kill the family dogs. Don’t notify local police (potential for blue on blue shooting). Didn’t do any investigation on the address/occupents (turned out to be the local mayor). All over a package of weed the cops had already intercepted and yet delivered anyways to see who might take delivery.

    Or Sal Culosi, shot dead during a police raid for making bets with friends on sporting events. No criminal history, upstanding businessman. Police officer who accidentally shot him? Nothing. You or me accidentally shoot someone probably end up facing some sort of manslaughter or lower leve murder charge.

    Or road blocks. Got stopped by a “sobriety check point” after picking my son up from swimming. What is the big deal? I don’t know of a bar within any reasonable distance given the side of the road they were on. So I asked, “Is there a bar near here?” Cop’s answer, “Oh, uh…well you’be surprised how many get off the freeway.” Yeah right.

    If a cop wants to stop you they will stop you, and you pretty much have no leg to stand on if the reason is bullshit. Cops think you don’t have a right to video tape them. But they can video tape you…unless of course they f*ck up then the video tape is convienently lost, like with the U. Maryland student. Of course, once things started popping up on youtube…”oh here’s the video!” Yeah, now about those missing 2 minutes?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. TangoMan says:

    Stopping a legal immigrant or citizen for a lawful purpose means that identification is usually produced as a result of the lawful contact. For the police officer to, at that point, discern the immigration status can in no way be construed as an additional burden being imposed on the legal immigrant or citizen to the degree that it constitutes harassment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. TangoMan says:

    Steve,

    Gonna have to disagree with you. “lawful contact” is pretty much a given for any police officer.

    I don’t disagree with the general thrust of your rebuttal on the abuse of power inherent in policing, however there is nothing inherent in this law which makes it stand apart from most other laws which involve police contact with the public.

    If lawful contact as a concept is being abused, then it needs to be reformed and curtailed. This law has a high likelihood of withstanding judicial review, in large part because it mandates police behavior within the bounds of “accepted norms.”

    Balko’s making a case that “accepted norms” lead to outrageous overstepping and feeble justifications. I’ve got no problem with his argument.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. JKB says:

    You know Arizona would be on shakier constitutional ground with this law if the Mexican Army hadn’t conducted armed incursions into the state and the US federal government had put some effort toward stopping the foreign incursions.

    I”m not sure this is fighting back. The Mexican government is informing its citizens of changes in local laws that impact them when they travel or live in Arizona. It’s what is expected from a government. In truth every country should add this information to their US travel information pages.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Steve Verdon says:

    Tangoman,

    That’s fine, but then it really isn’t agitprop that immigrants and legal residents who appear to be of hispanic origins are going to be hassled more than non-hispanic appearing people. Basically, if you are white, black and from some asian countries you get a free pass, otherwise you can expect to he bothered.

    Stopping a legal immigrant or citizen for a lawful purpose means that identification is usually produced as a result of the lawful contact.

    IANAL, but my understanding is that in most places mere verbal identification is sufficient, and in some places verbal identification is not even required unless there is reason for the police officer to suspect wrong doing. This law requires more.

    Bottomline is I think James and Steven Taylor are correct. Legally, there might be some fiction to try and hide behind, but in practice the police have been given pretty much a green light to stop anyone they think is hispanic simply for being hispanic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. JKB says:

    Well, the law has a couple of criteria:

    Legitimate contact and reasonable suspicion before the official is required to make a reasonable attempt

    1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

    Obviously, this can be abused before there is a body of decisions on what is reasonable suspicion but then that is the case in just about any law. However, it is reasonable to assume being hispanic is not going to cut it for reasonable suspicion very early on. In fact, I would expect such a stop would give the person a civil rights case against the official.

    What is really bugging the Left is that the law preempts any local action to ignore immigration law so there’ll be no San Francisco in Arizona. In Arizona, state and local officials (and police) must now ensure those they legitimately come in contact with are lawfully in the US if they have a reasonable suspicion otherwise. More than anything this law attacks the problem from officials turning a blind eye, employers skirting the law and residents hiring those not authorized to work in the US.

    And it gives state and local trespass violation for those present on private or public land without their green card. Carrying the green card at all times is a federal law requirement.

    A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. […] H/T: James Joyner […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    The proximity of the Nation of Mexico to the Nation of the United States of America, both sovereign nations, make it possible for citizens of either nation to cross national borders at unauthorized crossing points. Such acts are illegal. That said, if a white female is known to have robbed a bank. Why on earth would police search for African/Americans, Asians or males of any race? To allow those who have no respect for our laws to use those same laws to protect individuals who are in this country illegally have a motive which needs to be examined. The State of Arizona has the right and obligation to protect its citizens from those who are in the country illegally. Since they have no legal business in the United States, they have no business in Arizona. How many innocent girls and women have to be raped, how much dope has to be smuggled in before it is enough? How many more ranchers have to be murdered? What part of illegal is it difficult to understand? When we have a serious problem with Canadians crossing our border illegally, it would probably be a good idea to look for people who resemble Canadians. Since most of the folks illegally crossing our border to the south are Mexicans, those who bear resemblance to Mexicans will probably come under greater scrutiny. Any other approach is stupid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. PD Shaw says:

    So now you need either a passport or birth certificate when travelling through Arizona.

    It’ll be interesting if Obama chooses to travel through Arizona with this law on the books.

    Ba-ding-boom. Don’t forget to tip your waiters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. How many innocent girls and women have to be raped, how much dope has to be smuggled in before it is enough? How many more ranchers have to be murdered? What part of illegal is it difficult to understand?

    How many fast food restaurants will be cleaned, how many lawns must be mowed, how many houses must be framed, how much fruit must be picked…?

    Look, I understand that there is a problem with the border, but to pretend like what is going on here is stopping murder and rape is grossly misdiagnosing the problem. Yes, illegals have committed crimes, but there is no major crime wave (apart from the illegal crossings themselves) associated with illegal immigrants. To cast the situation in that light is simply wrong.

    The drug issue is a related, but separate one, by the way. Trust me, no matter what is done with illegal immigrants in Arizona, the drugs are coming. There is too much money to be made.

    There is, by the way, a marked difference between looking for a specific suspect of a crime based on description and passing a law that would have the effect of treating any and all white women with suspicion. This is not that hard to understand. Heck, even Mr. Conservative Favotite Marco Rubio sees this (click) and Tom Tancredo has at least acknowledged the potential for a problem (click).

    Does anything really think that someone like Joe Arpaio (whom James once called, rightly, a “thug and a bully“), the Maricopa County sheriff, won’t abuse this law?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. TangoMan says:

    That’s fine, but then it really isn’t agitprop that immigrants and legal residents who appear to be of hispanic origins are going to be hassled more than non-hispanic appearing people. Basically, if you are white, black and from some asian countries you get a free pass, otherwise you can expect to he bothered.

    Define “hasseled” first. When a cop pulls someone over for speeding, the cop has established lawful contact. The driver then hands over a driver’s license. At this point the officer starts to make an added determination of legal status. Yes, this is a form of questioning that someone with an American accent won’t have to face, but I’m not sure that it should be defined as a hassle.

    As to the charge of agitprop, when a Mexican official declares ““it should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment” which is so far removed from the truth, and when James validates this nonsense, then yes, what we’re seeing is agitprop designed to inflame reactions based on false statements.

    Bottomline is I think James and Steven Taylor are correct. Legally, there might be some fiction to try and hide behind, but in practice the police have been given pretty much a green light to stop anyone they think is hispanic simply for being hispanic.

    They’re both flat-out wrong because, in the case of James, he validated the Mexican agitprop as being “right, of course.” He’s put his reputation behind that reading of the situation. He’s left little ambiguity to exploit in his favor because he’s come out so convincingly on the side of the agitprop interpretation. Steven’s position is a little more ambiguous because he’s appealing to magic, and I’m not quite sure that this can be seen as making a convincing case.

    As to your concern about police stopping Hispanic people for simply being Hispanic, there are multiple ways to parse American citizen Hispanic from illegal alien Hispanic before contact is even made by police. I know that you’re quite familiar with Bayesian logic. Apply it here. Granted none of these methods is 100% accurate, but they’re also not 100% inaccurate. The application of probabilistic parsing in the evaluation process reduces the sledgehammer approach that you fear. Criteria could include clothing, state of dress, known associates, accents, etc that vary widely between American-born Hispanic citizens, foreign-born Hispanic citizens, Hispanic legal residents, Hispanic illegal aliens and newly arrived Hispanic illegal aliens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Steve Verdon says:

    Tangoman,

    Perhaps I’m not being clear. I’m not saying that the cops are going to do this during traffic violations stops, I’m saying that stopping people because they look hispanic is what they are going to do. Of course, on paper they’ll say something that will provide a vaneer of legal cover, but the reality is that its just going to be down to skin color in the end.

    As to the charge of agitprop, when a Mexican official declares ““it should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment” which is so far removed from the truth, and when James validates this nonsense, then yes, what we’re seeing is agitprop designed to inflame reactions based on false statements.

    It is not far from the truth because all the police need is some legal fiction to hide behind. For example, the cop claims the person was speeding. Courts routinely side with cops with the thinking of, “Why should the cop lie?” So the person being stopped has to prove he wasn’t speeding. The person was behaving suspiciously. Again, the courts will defer to the cops and again the person will have to prove they were not behaving in a suspcious manner. This has been seen time and again and then youtube video surfaces contradicting the officers and then the story changes and the obfuscating starts.

    Here is an example: Kathryn Johnston an elderly woman (85+) who’s home was being raided by police. Johnston not knowing it was the police meets them at the front door with a gun. The cops shoot and kill her. Before any evidence comes to light the Assistant Police Chief starts the ground work for a cover up. Then the supposed informant bails out of a cop car and runs to the FBI. Then the shit really hits the fan and we find out it was all made up bullshit. There was no drug buy. There were no drugs. There wasn’t even and informant and the one that ran to the FBI was being coerced by the dirty cops after the fact. The cops were in full cover-up mode until this all hit the news waves and then it went totally pear shaped for them and lots of people were fired. This time.

    We have given the police guns, body armor, and dtabases with our personal information on it. We’ve given them pretty much an effective green light to enter just about any home so long as they have something vaguely resembling a warrant (read Balko’s stuff on what happens to cops for wrong door raids). We keep giving them more and more power. This is but another example. Prove to Officer Goodguy that you aren’t an illegal. Whoops, you can’t. Even driver’s licenses can be faked. Used to be a thriving indusry down in Los Angeles near McArthur Park.

    I know that you’re quite familiar with Bayesian logic. Apply it here.

    My problem is that while this might be theoretically possible, I don’t think cops are going to even make a crude attempt. They screw up addresses on no-knock warrents where people (including cops) can (and have) get (gotten) killed. They then don’t keep track of said raids, nor do they keep track of their success vs. failure rates. And the funny part, it isn’t unheard of after the failed raid with flash bangs, machine guns and even tanks on the wrong house, they go next door to the right house, knock on the door and take the suspect into custody without all that hardware. Do they stop and say, “Hmmmm, maybe all these heavy handed and ultra-violent tactics aren’t necessary?” No.

    Criteria could include clothing, state of dress, known associates, accents, etc that vary widely between American-born Hispanic citizens, foreign-born Hispanic citizens, Hispanic legal residents, Hispanic illegal aliens and newly arrived Hispanic illegal aliens.

    Ha ha ha. Let me see. Cops don’t do any investigating before dynamic no-knock raids at 3 AM. Raids that are by definition designed to maximize confusion on the part of those being raided…i.e. the police are creating a dangerous situation where a homeonwer might respond with deadly force to a home invasion…and either kill cops, get killed himself, or both. But when looking for illegals the cops will suddenly do serious investigating? I’m thinking the answer is going to be no. The investigation will consist of, “He said ‘adios’ and he looks hispanic, so I busted him. Oh and he looked suspicious. See no profiling.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. TangoMan says:

    I’m not saying that the cops are going to do this during traffic violations stops, I’m saying that stopping people because they look hispanic is what they are going to do.

    We have a problem with illegal aliens infesting our society. The problem is not spread evenly across the US. Arizona is suffering the brunt of the problem. We got here because of bleeding heart liberals and greedy conservatives and lackadaisical moderates we’re all content, in their own ways, with privatizing the gains that resulted from the illegal alien infestation and socializing the losses. The situation is not sustainable and amnestying lawbreakers is not politically tenable nor is putting 20 million more net tax recipients on the social welfare rolls.

    Inaction is not a viable response. This leaves us with action, of some sort, being the only way forward. What you’re doing is a.) making perfect the enemy of the good, and b.) arguing against some hypothetical. I reject both of these lines of argument, especially the latter.

    It is not far from the truth because all the police need is some legal fiction to hide behind.

    This same reasoning applies to every instance of police-citizen contact. Secondly, there is judicial guidance on how and when racial profiling will be permitted. Thirdly, there is a weird disconnect on racial profiling in the public realm in that there are plenty of folks who are just peachy with racial profiling when it comes to EEOC mandates, affirmative action, etc where the harm falls on society and the ill-gotten benefits flow to the favored.

    Courts routinely side with cops with the thinking of, “Why should the cop lie?” So the person being stopped has to prove he wasn’t speeding.

    What you’re detailing here is a problem with the administration of justice in our nation. Your concern is misplaced if you believe that this law will break new ground.

    The concern of critics would be better received if they could come up with an alternative plan which would lead to voluntary and involuntary deportations of the 20 million illegals in our midst. I’m willing to listen to alternative plans which seek to achieve the goals of the Arizona legislation.

    Here is an example: Kathryn Johnston an elderly woman (85+) who . . .

    Steve, I’m not disagreeing with you on these examples. I share the same concern. The point is that the examples you cite are systemic and not solely applicable to this law. If the system bothers you so much then work to reform the system rather than working to undermine this much needed law while leaving the system intact.

    Prove to Officer Goodguy that you aren’t an illegal. Whoops, you can’t. Even driver’s licenses can be faked. Used to be a thriving indusry down in Los Angeles near McArthur Park.

    As technology increases in sophistication we now see officers are regularly in radio and computer contact with centralized databases. A driver’s license is no longer regularly presumed to be an authentic document by the police after only an examination in the field. They routinely radio in to validate the authenticity and can go further by pulling up on their in-the-field computers the photo attached to the license in order to compare it to the person that they’ve stopped. A fake license won’t pass the validation check of a police officer.

    They then don’t keep track of said raids, nor do they keep track of their success vs. failure rates.

    While a case can be made, I’m sure, for assessing programs on the basis of the worst-case performance, we don’t usually pick out the worst cases of conduct and assume that they are the basis of operation for the entire police force. I see no reason to presume that the bad behavior of police that you’ve documented taints the entire profession of policing. Further, I’m not prepared to base policy on the presumption that every cop is crooked or violence prone or eager to rampage through the Hispanic community in search of deportable aliens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. An Interested Party says:

    Oh the irony…I guess when the feds don’t help, that’ll give all the usual suspects something else to whine about…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Herb says:

    We have a problem with illegal aliens infesting our society.

    Wow, infesting? Like vermin?

    Now I realize that you’re not actually arguing that they are indeed vermin, just metaphorically.

    Further, I’m not prepared to base policy on the presumption that every cop is crooked or violence prone or eager to rampage through the Hispanic community in search of deportable aliens.

    Not every cop…just some of the ones in Arizona.

    Perhaps you would be prepared to base policy on the presumption that poorly framed statutes exude poorly framed results?

    Because you can hem and haw all you want, but this law isn’t going to solve the immigration problem.

    It’s just going to create more problems.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. vnjagvet says:

    To me, he statute does not appear to be unconstitutional on its face. As I understand the law, the “parade of horribles” argument (i.e., what bad might happen) is not particularly relevant to the analysis of facial validity of a statute.

    Examples of facial invalidity:
    The conduct forbidden by the statute is so poorly described that it is too vague;
    The conduct forbidden by the statute is so broad as to chill expression protected by the First Amendment.

    On the other hand, the way the statute is written will provide fertile ground for litigation challenging the application of the statute. This will come first in the form of challenges to convictions for lack of probable cause to inquire about citizenship. Most of the above described examples should result in successful challenges of this type. Second, it will most certainly come in federal lawsuits under 42 USC Section 1983, which gives rise to civil liability against unconstitutional governmental conduct. You can bet plaintiffs’ civil rights attorneys will see this as a lawyers’ protection act.

    I don’t think any preemptive attacks by the Justice Department will be successful.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. anjin-san says:

    My wife is filipino but looks quite a bit like a latina. I can see her getting harassed if she were to travel there.

    Hell, you don’t have to go to Arizona. Back in the 80’s I had a filipino roommate. Perfectly respectable guy, good job, came from a good family. But he had long hair and kind of a greasy car. He got pulled over about every other day.

    Finally I called the mayor, who talked to the police chief and the cops stopped messing with him, but I still wonder WTF a solid citizen has to have his white friend vouch for him before he can simply go about his lawful business.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. anjin-san says:

    We got here because of bleeding heart liberals and greedy conservatives and lackadaisical moderates we’re all content, in their own ways

    Actually, we got here because once upon a time we basically stole a big chunk of Mexico. Now I have certainly benefited from this, as I live on an especially pretty slice of California, but I always try to keep in mind that should temper the high and mighty “what are you people doing here” attitude.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Steve Verdon says:

    Inaction is not a viable response.

    Subverting the very principles of freedom and justice to pursue the goal of removing/reducing illegal aliens in our society strikes me as the wrong approach. It is the wrong approach becuase politicians like to gather more and more power. As such, even if it works and there are fewer or even no illegals how long till politicians look to try and turn those laws on non-illegals. Look at eminent domain and the RICO statues and how they’ve seen expanded use way beyond their original intent. Or SWAT units for that matter.

    This same reasoning applies to every instance of police-citizen contact.

    Yes, the system is fundamentally broken so expanding police powers is risky at best and downright insane at worst. It is time to stop being a knee-jerk law-n-order type who always backs up the cops. My view is that police are at best a necessary evil and at worst…well remove the ‘at best a neccessary’ part.

    Steve, I’m not disagreeing with you on these examples. I share the same concern. The point is that the examples you cite are systemic and not solely applicable to this law.

    Yes and my point is we have a very serious wide spread problem so stop giving cops greater and greater power. Just stop. Fix what is broken, then move on.

    While a case can be made, I’m sure, for assessing programs on the basis of the worst-case performance, we don’t usually pick out the worst cases of conduct and assume that they are the basis of operation for the entire police force.

    We only get to see the worst cases. We don’t get to see the best cases or the cases in between because cops and their lick spittle supporters constantly refuse to track the use of SWAT units and their performance. I submit that it is like an iceberg. We see what is egregious enough to get into the press, beyond that we don’t. And lets be clear here, police use SWAT teams on routine drug busts at 3AM to keep people from flushing their stash and that’s it. They create an extraordinarily volatile situation that could end badly for cops and the people being raided to preserve evidence. Evidence is more important than the lives of the people being raided and cops…and keep in mind that in many of these raids there are families present that have little or nothing to do with the actual crime. It is reckless and stupid, but we are expanding the number of SWAT teams and their usage constantly.

    And yes, I consider all cops as having an ethics problems. Here is why, a police department has a bad cop. He breaks the law. Other cops witness it and do…nothing. Complaints are made, and other cops do…nothing. In fact, other cops cover for this bad cop. If any cop does come forward he or she will likely be hounded out of that department and possibly black listed. As the saying goes, all that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. If you are a good cop and you see cops engaging in questionable behavior then you should do something about it otherwise you cease being a good cop and become an enabler.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Steve Verdon says:

    For your reading pleasure TangoMan,

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/key-evidence-thrown-out-in-cops-dui-arrest.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/three-chicago-cops-cleare_n_192455.html

    Note the judge is the same in both cases…judges look out for the cops too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Sash Windows says:

    Sash Windows…

    I totally agree…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. […] Mexico Issues Arizona Travel Advisory (outsidethebeltway.com) […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Arturo_Vandelay says:

    Well Steve, can’t we just allow states rights to rule the day and California can have no laws at all. I’d be happy to have AZ pay bus fare for any criminal that wants to go to San Francisco.

    If you don’t trust cops and do trust undocumented aliens I figure we can work something out. I had one of my customers shot in the belly by an illegal a ways back and he escaped back into Mexico. I figure as long as you want that kind of “undocumented workers” it doesn’t make any difference to me where they hide.

    Then you generous folks can spare us the lecture.

    Of course you all realize that near the border the BP can already do more than local cops will ever have the power to do, so you better find a way to call off the federal dogs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0