by David Safier There have been lots of bits and pieces of SB1070 news since I last compiled a list. Here are some of them. Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor went to DC to talk with Attorney General Eric Holder. "He joined nine other police chiefs from across the country to explain that SB 1070 … Read more
by David Safier MSNBC has announced it is devoting today, Wednesday, to discussing immigration issues. Apparently Telemundo is planning to do the same. On Monday, Telemundo set up its broadcasting shop in Phoenix. Jose Ronstadt explains, “We thought it's important for people to know what's happening in Arizona, raise consciousness so people can understand what … Read more
by David Safier
Yesterday I posted about a sentence in SB1070 which says, in essence, the law has nothing to do with establishing a National ID card. The sentence sounds like an "Oh, by the way," rather than something integral to the bill.
My conclusion: the people who wrote the legislation know it creates a situation where some U.S. citizens will have to carry ID papers of one kind of another, and to make sure the right doesn't get upset, the sentence was thrown in. The implication is, "The ID thing is only for brown people. White people don't need to worry about carrying around ID to prove they're here legally, because if you're white, everyone knows you're all right."
There's another sentence in the bill that also seems to be thrown in, which I think tells a whole lot about the intent of the bill. It says child protective service workers and emergency medical people don't have to worry about getting in trouble for transporting illegal aliens. The law doesn't apply to them.
The sentence is in the section about transporting illegal aliens (13-2929). It says, basically, if you transport people you know are illegal aliens and you're stopped, not only will they be arrested, but your car can be impounded, and you're subject to a fine of at least $1,000. The fine goes up to $1,000 per person if more than 10 people are involved.
The question is, does this apply to drivers taking people they know are here illegally to church on Sunday or driving a neighbor — or a spouse, child or other relative — to the store?
Maybe so, maybe no.
The section has some murky language implying the person driving the car is only in trouble if he/she "is in violation of a criminal offense." Does that mean you have to be something like a human trafficker or drug runner to have your car impounded and a fine imposed? Does your purpose for transporting the person have to be concealment?
For me, the question is answered in the sentence saying the section doesn't apply to child protective service workers and emergency medical people — ambulance drivers, etc.
When a child protective service worker is driving a child from one place to another, he/she isn't transporting the child to hide him/her from the police. And an ambulance driver isn't taking a sick or injured illegal immigrant to the hospital for the purpose of hiding that person. The sentence is redundant and unnecessary — unless the section applies to people transporting illegal aliens simply to take them somewhere, like church or the store.
Take out the exclusionary sentence, and it could be argued a trip to church with illegal aliens in the car won't get the driver in trouble. Add that sentence, and the clear implication is, transporting an illegal alien for anything other than official business can put your car and your bank account in jeopardy.
You can read Section 13-2929 after the jump.
by David Safier Steve Irvin at Phoenix's ABC15 is upset with the Goldwater Institute for its silence on SB1070. Silence can be deafening, especially when you've made it your business to speak out. Which is why I've been puzzled and just a little miffed at the Goldwater Institute. Months have passed since our state's immigration … Read more
by David Safier The silence is positively defining. The Goldwater Institute, which has an opinion on every almost every controversial issue in Arizona, is still mum on SB1070. Dead silent. Nothing to hear but crickets. Cowards. Abject, unprincipled cowards. Everything about your libertarian philosophy and your past writings say you're against this infringement of civil … Read more