Two Things on Arizona Immigration
These two articles do not partake of the "Nazi state!" "Police state!" "Your papers" rhetoric that is being uttered by irresponsible reporters, comedians, and (unfortunately) President Obama.
One of the articles reports on these utterances, and the other tries for an actual look at the background and legal underpinnings of the law itself. From the latter article:Now, Arizona lawmakers have made some changes intended to clarify their intent and, perhaps, silence some of the critics. The changes were first reported by Phoenix television station KNXV, better known as ABC15.
The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…” Although drafters of the law said the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law - like a traffic stop - critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”
So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”
What do you think? The media's characterization that people will be randomly "harassed" because they "took their kid out to get ice cream" seems overblown, does it not?
There is subtlety: the "engrossed" bill does not contain the changed wording. That came later, with the passage of another bill that amends this one.
===|==============/ Level Head
One of the articles reports on these utterances, and the other tries for an actual look at the background and legal underpinnings of the law itself. From the latter article:Now, Arizona lawmakers have made some changes intended to clarify their intent and, perhaps, silence some of the critics. The changes were first reported by Phoenix television station KNXV, better known as ABC15.
The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…” Although drafters of the law said the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law - like a traffic stop - critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”
So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”
What do you think? The media's characterization that people will be randomly "harassed" because they "took their kid out to get ice cream" seems overblown, does it not?
There is subtlety: the "engrossed" bill does not contain the changed wording. That came later, with the passage of another bill that amends this one.
===|==============/ Level Head