Since I've been extremely one sided, here is an article that has quotations from one of the authors of the bill, rebutting some of the arguments against the bill.
"As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers … you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
* * *
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
http://www.publiusnm.org/az-sb-1070-from-the-author/
Wednesday
SB 1070's final version: HB 2162
These abbreviations sound like diseases...
Anyways, I've been referring to SB 1070 but I should be referring to it AND to HB 2162. It was passed to amend SB 1070. The main difference is that "race, color, or ethnicity simply cannot be used as part of reasonable suspicion" (http://www.publiusnm.org/sb-1070-meet-hb-2162-az-immigration-law-amended/).
Here is the direct quote from the bill:
"C. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution." http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Take a look at HB 2162 for yourself and tell me what you think. Does this solve the racial profiling that might occur from the passage of SB 1070?
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Anyways, I've been referring to SB 1070 but I should be referring to it AND to HB 2162. It was passed to amend SB 1070. The main difference is that "race, color, or ethnicity simply cannot be used as part of reasonable suspicion" (http://www.publiusnm.org/sb-1070-meet-hb-2162-az-immigration-law-amended/).
Here is the direct quote from the bill:
"C. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution." http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Take a look at HB 2162 for yourself and tell me what you think. Does this solve the racial profiling that might occur from the passage of SB 1070?
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Monday
Learning more about conservatives' spending power
If you have access to a university library, check out this article by Kathleen deMarrais from the University of Georgia. I just had the opportunity to observe one of her classes this evening. She is an amazing teacher and researcher.
Demarrais, K. (2006). "The Haves and the Have Mores": Fueling a conservative ideological war on Public education (or tracking the money). Educational Studies, 39(3), 201-240.
I found it using Academic Search Complete.
If you don't have access, post your email address in the comment field and I can send you the article.
Demarrais, K. (2006). "The Haves and the Have Mores": Fueling a conservative ideological war on Public education (or tracking the money). Educational Studies, 39(3), 201-240.
I found it using Academic Search Complete.
If you don't have access, post your email address in the comment field and I can send you the article.
What other organizations exist like ALEC?
Here is an organization we talked about in one of the classes I recently visited:
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
"The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them." http://thefire.org/about/mission/
Sounds like they do good work right? Well, that's open to interpretation. Check out this article from 2003 on NPR (surprisingly, that was the most recent NPR piece on the organization).
"A Philadelphia-based group sues Shippensburg University, saying a school code aimed at promoting sensitivity and protecting the rights of minorities violates the First Amendment. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which plans to file similar challenges at universities across the country, says the policy bars students from speaking out."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1260465
This was the best example of a nonprofit doing very political work, in my opinion. Are there others you know of? Please share in the comments section!
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
"The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them." http://thefire.org/about/mission/
Sounds like they do good work right? Well, that's open to interpretation. Check out this article from 2003 on NPR (surprisingly, that was the most recent NPR piece on the organization).
"A Philadelphia-based group sues Shippensburg University, saying a school code aimed at promoting sensitivity and protecting the rights of minorities violates the First Amendment. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which plans to file similar challenges at universities across the country, says the policy bars students from speaking out."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1260465
This was the best example of a nonprofit doing very political work, in my opinion. Are there others you know of? Please share in the comments section!
What is ALEC?
So, if you have been reading, you may be wondering, who is ALEC? The organization was mentioned quite a bit in the NPR story a few posts back. Well, here's their website and their summary statement.
ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council
"Nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators which favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions."
Yes, that's right, "nonpartisan". Do you think it's possible to be nonpartisan? I really mean that. I am not trying to get a certain answer here because I don't know if it is, but I'm open to hearing arguments on both sides.
ALEC is one of the 501(c)3 organizations that, for a lack of a better way of saying it, try to influence policy by going as far as writing legislation and giving it to legislators to whom they contribute funds and with whom they share similar goals and ideals. This is legal because they are a non-profit. However, non-profits are not supposed to be involved in policy creation like this or else they may be confused as lobbyists.
Here is what the IRS has to say about non-profits and their work as lobbyists:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
ALEC isn't the only organization dancing on the line between being a non-profit and a lobbyist. I'll post some examples in my next post.
ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council
"Nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators which favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions."
Yes, that's right, "nonpartisan". Do you think it's possible to be nonpartisan? I really mean that. I am not trying to get a certain answer here because I don't know if it is, but I'm open to hearing arguments on both sides.
ALEC is one of the 501(c)3 organizations that, for a lack of a better way of saying it, try to influence policy by going as far as writing legislation and giving it to legislators to whom they contribute funds and with whom they share similar goals and ideals. This is legal because they are a non-profit. However, non-profits are not supposed to be involved in policy creation like this or else they may be confused as lobbyists.
Here is what the IRS has to say about non-profits and their work as lobbyists:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention." http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html
Just in case you didn't listen to the NPR story, here is what you missed:
- ALEC holds conferences where they invite legislators to be "educated" about issues.
- At one of these conferences, Senator Russel Pearce brought the idea for SB 1070 (according to a source of Sullivan's). NPR Story
- SB 1070 was written and taken to the Arizona State House of Representatives.
ALEC isn't the only organization dancing on the line between being a non-profit and a lobbyist. I'll post some examples in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)