A bunch of thoughts that lead to nowhere in particular -
I have been watching the hole hullabaloo regarding the Arizona immigration law, not with great interest, but with some interest simply because this strikes me as more along the lines of politicking than actual law making. On its face I can't see how the law stands a constitutional challenge, that being it would appear to be a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, you can't require a specific class of people to carry papers that establish their right to be here unless you require it of everyone. I have yet to see the document that requires whites or blacks to carry papers on their person that establishes their right to be here legally. That being said, of course the law is good for drawing out votes during primary season, when the more die hard and radical people show up to vote and Arizona has a governor (Jan Brewer) and a Senator (John McCain) who both are facing primary challenges from Republicans that for the most part are more conservative than they are. But by signing this law, or in the case of McCain, tepidly supporting it, it buys time since the law isn't to be enacted until August, so you put your stamp on it now to show how hard hard you are on illegal immigration, then stand back and let the legal challenges roll in over the next few months that will in all likelihood shoot it down, but at the same time you garner the votes from supporting it to help keep you in office.
Hockey season is over and while there is a certain amount of disappointment with the Penguins losing to the Canadiens in the Eastern Conference Semifinal, especially when it appeared that from a strictly talent perspective the Penguins had the stronger roster from top to bottom, in the land of my big picture thinking I am not going to complain. Over the last three years the hometown team has won one Stanley Cup, made another Stanley Cup Final and made the conference semifinals. There are plenty of teams out there that would be happy with those results. That being said, this off season will prove to be an important one if the Penguins wish to remain Stanley Cup contenders. Certainly with talents like Sidney Crosby, Jordan Staal and Evgeni Malkin the Penguins will be almost a lock for one of the Eastern Conference's 8 playoff spots, but this team has holes on defense and on the wing that if left unaddressed in the off season will surely limit the chances of the Penguins winning a second Stanley Cup next year. Despite all of the talent at the center position, only one winger was able to tally more than 20 goals, Bill Geurin (21) and he is 38 years old, hardly a spring chicken. For all of the talk that Kris Letang would be the guy to eventually replace Sergei Gonchar at quarterbacking the power play, he had 0 goals and 4 assists in such situations this past year and his shooting percentage was abysmal (.017). Yes, the roster needs a lot of work to get back to where it needs to be.
I made note previously that the old radio station where I worked was not doing oh so well in its new incarnation as business talk and that the major player in having me removed was, Ron Morris, was relegated to asking for contributions to keep his project, Pittsburgh Business Radio, afloat. Well you can put away your wallets kids, the show is dead. And yes, that warmth that you are feeling is coming from the cockles of my heart.
If you are going to see Iron Man 2 a quick piece of advice, sit through the credits. There is a tease at the very end that depending on you comic book geekdom, may prove to be very well worth it. Which is more than I can say for the two hours of the movie. While not bad, the fight scenes were almost anticlimactic compared to the first movie.
I also had the opportunity to see KIck Ass this spring. I know, I am spoiling myself by actually taking in movies but I digress. A couple of things about the movie, first it was very good. Second would be that despite the title of Kick Ass, the movie was all but stolen by Hit Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz), and dare I say this might have been Nicholas Cage's best movie in ages, which I realize is almost damning with faint praise at this point.
If I had to pick between the two movies, I would say Kick Ass was the better of the two, not that my recommendation means anything, but if you are of limited shekels or time and could only see one of the two movies, Kick Ass would be the better choice.
The smoke and mirrors act of the Pittsburgh Pirates season continues. Consider that the team is currently in fourth place in the National League Central (6 teams) and is only 6 games under .500 at 16-22 and hope might spring eternal that they could somehow find a way to end their consecutive losing season streak (18) and counting but allow me to see the glass here as half empty. While they are within shouting distance of a .500 record, so far this season they have been outscored by 103 runs, the next worst team in that category, the Houston Astros, are at a -64. And lets take an honest look at the product they put on the field on a daily basis, like today for instance, a 12-2 loss to Philadelphia. Of the guys in the lineup today only one, Andrew McCutcheon, had a batting average over .275 (.331). The starting pitcher, Chad Morton, was making his 8th start of the year and after today's effort is a resounding 1-7 with an ERA approaching 10 (9.68). Of the 8 pitchers that have made the Pirates 38 starts this year, their ERAs look like this; 9.68, 4.40, 5.56, 5.00, 5.59, 3.00, 13.50 and 27.00. Not that the hitting is any better, two guys (McCutcheon, Garrett Jones) are tied for the team lead in homeruns with 5, which would tie them for 34th in the National League and the team batting average stands at .235, good for 15th place out of 16 teams in the National League. This team may look to be near .500 right now but trust me, there is no way they will reach that plateau this season.
So, Miss Michigan, Rika Fakih wins the MIss USA title and almost immediately photos appear on the web of her pole dancing at a radio station contest. Anyone want to guess what hoops the pageant's owner, Donald Trump, will make her jump through to keep her crown?
Coming soon to a theater near you, MacGruber, another movie based on an Saturday Night Live skit. Anyone remember the last SNL skit made into a movie that was even remotely funny? Wayne's World perhaps? Gee, that was only 18 years ago. Since then you could have had a kid, put them through school and sent them off to college. That is a long time to not be funny.
I managed to finish off a book yesterday for the first time in ages. Piece of advice, don't try reading 5 books at the same time.
Okay, time for bed, more musings later.
I've only read a couple of articles about the Arizona Immigration legislation proposal but it smacks of vote garnering to me.
ReplyDeletePoor Rika (or is it Rima?) It seems high time that these sort of pageants reviewed their archaic expectations of the contestants....lets face it society's general decline in morality is a lot different to post ww2 when these pageants started to become popular. Why should pole dancing for a charity event affect her title?
I'm looking forward to watching MacGruber...not enough to fork out a wad of cash to see it at the theatre, I'll wait until it's out on dvd. The only other noteworthy one I can think of, apart from Wayne's World is of course The Blues Brothers.
I just never found the MacGruber skit particularly funny and certainly not worthy of an entire movie. And your post is going to make me do research, I thought The Blues Brothers was before Wayne's World, though I would agree that it was a decent enough movie.
ReplyDeleteOkay, research is complete and I missed one, Office Space, that was based on some animated sketches that first appeared on LIquid Television and later on SNL, but here is the complete list
All You Need is Cash - 1978
The Blues Brothers - 1980
Wayne's World - 1992
Wayne's World 2 - 1993
Coneheads - 1993
It's Pat - 1994
Stuart Saves His Family - 1995
A Night at the Roxbury - 1998
Blues Brothers 2000 - 1998
Office Space - 1999
Superstar - 1999
The Ladies Man - 2000
MacGruber - 2010
From a strictly financial standpoint Wayne's World was the most successful, generating $121,697,323 at the box office on a budget of $20 million. The worst was It's Pat, which only did $60,822 in ticket sales.
hmmm....after reading the senate bill concerning arizonas law.
ReplyDeletethis law apears to be aimed at stopping those who smuggle aliens over the border
and companies that intentionaly employ illegals
i came acrss no section stating that mexicans had to carry papers ,just cops asking for valid drivers liscenses.
it also stated many times that the local authortie is not to make any determination of a persons status on there own
i also dont recall reading anything about cops not being able to stop a white guy
ReplyDeletedeleted my earlier response afte
ReplyDeleter further investigating....
after reading arizonas bill,i dont see how this forces anyone to carry papers that they are not already
forced to carry by federal law.
it appears to me that this law is aimed at the people who smuggle in illegals and companies that knowingly hire them.
it also gives the state the power to charge illegal aliens with trespassing.
no citizens will be forced to carry papers....some may do so out of paranoia.(of course all it would take is a drivers liscensce or legal id).
The problem arises when legal citizens are forced to carry papers. Over 30 percent of Arizona's citizenry is Hispanic, and if they don't carry papers, even though they may be legal citizens, the law has the power to incarcerate them. In order for them to not be singled out, they too, despite being legal citizens are forced to carry papers documenting that they are in fact US citizen. In order for this not to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution then, all Arizona citizens, regardless of ethnic background, should be required to carry papers. While I personallyu usually leave the house with an id of some sort, I admnit there are times where I simply run around the corner to buy some milk or smokes, if I am in Arizona now and I am Hispanic looking, that is cause enough for me to be carrying papers, and because the Equal Protection Clause argues that the law should be enforced equally, then everybody in Arizona needs to be carrying papers, any differentiation from that is a violation of the US Constitution.
ReplyDeletethe way the law is written, a person can not even be asked for proof unless stopped for breaking a law.
ReplyDeletehence as long as you dont mug anyone on your way to get your milk your cool...
thus this law does not violate the equal protection act
.
the law even stated that an officer could not decided to ask for proof of citizenship based soley on race or ethnicity....it has since been changed to omit the phrase "solely"
ReplyDeletethus making it even more politicly correct
while the 14 amendment says that no state shall write laws putting undo burdens on certain groups of people ....it does not gaurantee equal enforcemet of a law....if it did we would have the same pecentage of all races in jail.
ReplyDeletethis leaves the logical conclusion that if most of arizonias illegal immagrants are mexican then no matter how even handed you write and enforce your laws....more hispanics are going to be checked than others and this is something that the 14 amendment does permit
No, you can be stopped for probable cause, regardless of innocence or guilt and under the new Arizona law during such a time a police officer can ask you to provide proof that you are here legally if they have reason to believe you may not be. If proof of having a legal right to be here is not forthcoming, then you can be locked up, pending determination of your status. So an upstanding, law abiding citizen of Arizona can in fact be detained in jail if they do not carry papers simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time and not carrying papers. Because the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican, what this means is that if you are part of the 30% of Arizona's populace that are of Hispanic origin you have to carry papers or risk being detained for no other reason than you don't have them on your person. My concern isn't for illegals, I would argue they have no Constitutional protections, but for those that are citizens and should expect as much. Unless cops in Arizona are going to demand proof of a legal right to be here for any and all people stopped under probable cause, then they can't single out a specific ethnic group to do so. Is it politically correct? Absolutely but otherwise you create the undue burden the 14th should protect all citizens from.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court in Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada ruled that during a stop a person is required legally only to answer a police officer when asked for their name, not provide id to an officer, and left the door open to revisit the issue pending 4th (unreasonbable search and seizure) and 5th (bearing witness against one's self) amendment concerns. Hiibel lost his case, not because he failed to provide id upon request, but because he failed to state his name to the officer making the stop.
I didn't know office space was based off an SNL skit.
ReplyDeleteI didn't either, and technically it wasn't a skit so much as it was an animated short that would air between skits, but the short first appeared on Liquid Television, an animated show on MTV, and was later adopted by SNL. It wasn't an original SNL creation, which is probably why neither of us associated it with the show.
ReplyDeleteodd...according to my reading of the hibel case....the majority felt that it was reasonable for an officer to ask for identification...it was only ruled that in the case of nevadas stop and identify law that the person stopped only supply thier name.
ReplyDeletethe fact is that " probabable cause" does not mean " just for the hell of it "
it is a term that is defined by both the courts and law makers'''''it denies the police the power to stop anybody they wish ! also in the case of this law...the officer would have to explain either to the feds or an agent in touch with the feds (who are the only people capable of making the final determination of someones legal status)....why and under what circumstancses he asked this person for proof of citizenship.
not only does the acting officer need to have probable cause for stopping this person ....he then needs to explain why he believed it nessacary to ask for proof of citizenship .this law does not give police the ability to go play "nazi".
the fact is that the way this law is written, it does force everybody to carry papers...
I am not suggesting that it does allow the police to play Nazi, I leave the Nazi talk to Glenn Beck, who makes a career of alleging it every time something doesn't go his way. What I am saying, however, is the minute you ask for legal proof of an Americans citizenship or legal status on their person and you incarerate them if they don't have it then you have created a constitutional problem unless that is asked of all persons. According the the state of Arizona's toruism website regarding the new law, American citizens are not required to carry papers, only aliens in the country are required to do so (http://www.arizonaguide.com/arizona-travel-info/identification-requirements) so if an American citizen is asked for proof of citizenship and detained if it is not forthcoming it would seem that it is in direct conflict with the law if citizens are not legally required to carry papers to begin with.
ReplyDeleteLike I originally argued way back when in the initial entry, I suspect this is more about grandstanding than anything else. Arizona's primary is in August, the law takes effect in late July, just in time for Senator McCain to reap the political benefits of supporting it in his Senate race against JD Hayeworth, and for Governor Brewer to gain votes by signing it into law, given she is facing three other Republicans in the primary race for governor, all four of which are outpolling the front running Democrat in head to head matchups. The legal challenges that I have no doubt will be forthcoming will most likely not see the court until after the primary ballots are cast. I could be wrong, my prognostications have been far from perfect in the past, but this looks more like political gamemanship than actual legislation.
umm.....the police have to accept any legal id ...such as drivers liscence ,,,id.or ss card as proof of id ...if that person does not have that ,only then can he ask for citizenship papers. all aliens appyling for citizenship must carry at all times papers proving they have applied for us citizenship (federal law 1948 i believe)...the olny id a hispanic citizen needs is the same a white citizen needs
ReplyDeleteif the republicians go the way i believe....mcain will see no benifiet from this.
ReplyDeletemy argument has always been about this law passing the test of the 14th amendment and your reasoning behind why it may fail
if it is deemed constitusional to show proof to get employment then showing proof under reaasonable suspicion is just as valid
ReplyDeleteTrue, aliens do have to carry papers under federal law, they are not citizens after all, even if they are applying for citizenship status they have not reached that plateau yet but American citizens do not, unless they are specifically doing something that would require them to do so, such as driving a car in which case a license needs to be present. Under the Arizona law, a US citizen stopped under probable cause and subsequently asked about their status can be jailed if they don't have id until their status is determined. Because the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are of Mexican origin, I still argue it places an undue burden on Hispanic looking people to either force them to carry id, even if they are US citizens, or risk potential incarceration if they find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time without id. One needs only look at our trip back from the nudie bar to see how easily one can end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, lol.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between a stop and a work requirement is that we as American citizens, by are very status as such, have a right to be here, where as work is a priviledge, not a right, just as getting a drivers license is a priviledge and not a right and certain criteria must be met in order to reap certain benefits. Depending on where you may wish to work, certain stipulations may be asked of you.
As for McCain benefitting, I don't know that he will or won't, just suggesting why it is that he has changed his tune so much since supporting George Bush's plan for comprehensive immigration reform (a plan that I also supported) to now saying that if Barack Obama proposes it he will round up all 40 Republican senators to oppose it. My guess is that it may help him slightly in a primary, but will cost him in a general election, but at this point it will cost any Republican in a general election. Support among Hispanics for the Republican Presidential nominee dropped from 44% for Bush in 2004 to 31% for McCain in 2008.
the law as written will force ALL arizonia citizens to carry id
ReplyDeleteyou cant claim undue burden if the majority choose not to carry id (while hispanics chose to) and risk being caught. the way the law is written all citizens will be held....not just hispanics.ie...a white guy without proof gets treated just like a hispanic without id.
the only burden placed on legal hispanics is caused by the racial makeup of illegal aliens( arizona has no control of the racial diversity of thier illegals),not any wording or intent of this bill.
had the makeup of illegal aliens crossing the border been racialy equal then you would have no cause to believe legal hispanics would be burdened and no one would even consider a 14th amendement test.
even if it did.....
remember the 14th amendment states "undue burden" not just burden.
But there is nothing to catch if you are a US citizen. Again I refer back to the Arizona tourism link, which specifically addresses the new legislation...
ReplyDelete3. What types of documents do I need to travel to and throughout Arizona?
The new law does not require U.S. citizens to carry identification. The new law merely requires aliens to carry registration documents that they are already required to carry under federal law. Under the new law, law enforcement officers may only inquire about immigration status if there is first a lawful stop, detention or arrest for a violation of some other law, and then the officer has reasonable suspicion that that you are an alien unlawfully present in the United States. If this occurs, the legislation provides that any one of the following forms of identification will be accepted by law enforcement as proof of legal immigration status in the United States:
1.A valid Arizona driver license.
2.A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
3.A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
4.Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance*.
The federal government, or a state or local law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government, can only make the final determination of a person’s immigration status. State or local law enforcement officers who are not authorized by the federal government cannot make these determinations.
* If you question the validity of your state’s form of identification, please refer to your state’s Motor Vehicle Division
So it would seem that US citizens, by virtue of the very first sentence, are not required to carry id, unless the Arizona tourism bureau is ignorant of their state's own legislation, and given the question is regarding the current law, I would think not.. The burden becomes undue then if a specific group (Hispanics) are required to carry id while others (whites, blacks, Asians, etc.) are not. Certainly the law applies burdens on people in general, and as long as those burdens are reasonable and equally applied, then they are not undue ones. If the law were to require everyone to carry id, I would argue that the burden then wouldn't be undue at all, but because it does not, by Arizona's own statement as such, then once you stop a US citizen, ask them for id and detain them if they don't have it, even though the law doesn't require you to carry such information, then the burden becomes undue.
i dont believe that arizonias dept of tourism represents thier final word on law.
ReplyDeletenone the less ,you are right this bill does not directly state that any citizen has to carry papers.however since the police cannot make random stops and can only ask for proof of id after a legal stop and according to my reading of the bill, must also show suscpsion of non residence(not using race as a factor).....then this billl spreads the responsibilliy to carry id equally.should more hispanics choose to carry id than whites ...it can only be caused by the makeup of the illegals
I think there is the problem, you hit the nail on head as it were, determining suspicion of non residence without using race as a factor (that was my reading of the bill as well). Telling citizens that they are not legally required to carry id, but if they don't they may end up jailed for not doing so (until their status is determined, which can't be done on sight, only a fed can do that) creates a situation that unless you demand id of everyone race will almost certainly be one of the determining factors of asking for id of someone suspected of not being here legally.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with your interpretaion of the Hiibel decision, at least to a point. The court ruled (5-4, hardly a landslide) that the requirements of the Nevada law (you have to answer the question of your name when asked) did not violate the 4th amendment, but other more broadly construed stop and identify laws have not passed constitutional muster (Kolender v. Lawson).
kolender v lawson was a case invovling a law that did NOT reqiure the police make a legal stop first.
ReplyDeletethe only arrest that can be made is of a person that commits a violation that would cause them to be deported
correct me if i am wrong...but when a legal alien is caught without his papers he is fined not deported. therefore you dont go to jail until your staus can be determined
At the time of Kolender v. Lawson it was legal under the California Penal code to stop people who were loitering and ask for id, the 9th Circuit shot down the law under 4th Amendment concerns saying is subverted the probable cause requirement, the Supreme Court simply stated that the law was too vague and as a result the law was repealed.
ReplyDeleteAn alien who is without papers can be fined up to $100 and/or jailed up to 30 days for each offense by the federal government, the Arizona law tacks onto that, making it a state crime as well with with the penalties of up to a $100 fine and/or 20 days in jail on a first offense and up to a $100 fine and/or 30 days in jail for each subsequent offense.
but ...since not having papers is not a deportable offense....a legal citizen cannot be arrested just to detemine thier status
ReplyDeletei should have made my point clear ...the law involving K vs L ,did not require the officer to make a legal stop for violation of some other law.....see we almost agree on that point :-)
ReplyDelete