Q. Was federal Judge Susan Bolton's decision to temporarily halt the key provisions of SB1070 in accordance to constitutional considerations?
A.There can be no doubt that her decision was not a neutral judicial decision, but rather a political decision to ingratiate with the Obama administration.
Q. What were the reasons given by Judge Bolton to halt SB1070?
A. Judge Bolton thinks that SB1070 would be too burdensome and would tax federal resources. But since the feds are doing virtually nothing to enforce immigration laws, to what resources is she referring?
Q. What reason did judge Bolton give for nixing the provision to ask suspected illegal aliens for documents such as a green card?
Q. Many of those opposed to SB1070 say that "reasonable suspicion" amounts to color of skin and that white people stopped would not be asked for documents. Is this true?
A. No. There isn't anyone reading this page who hasn't been asked for their drivers license when stopped for a traffic violation regardless of color. Arizona officers routinely arrest drivers who cannot produce IDs. The reason that there is a belief that Hispanics are targeted is because a disproportionate number of Hispanics in Arizona drive without license or ID. Anyone, Hispanic or not, are routinely arrested if they can't produce any kind of identification. For a simulation of reasonable suspicion, click here.
Q. What do you say to those who say that law enforcement should be going after criminal aliens, not honest hardworking illegal immigrants who just want to put bread on the table for their family?
A. How does an officer tell the difference between a good illegal alien from a bad illegal alien -- by profiling?
Q. What do you say to those who say that SB1070 does nothing to secure the border?
A. A common police method to smoke out violent criminals is to nab them for minor crimes and infractions which can lead to the discovery of hard criminals and fugitives. When ex Los Angeles police chief William Bratton was police chief for New York City, he had his officers arrest people who jumped the turnstile in the subway to avoid paying the fare. This strategy yielded the arrest of thousands of criminals with pending arrest warrants on them. While there is much work to be done to secure the border, many criminal aliens who have easily crossed the border could be smoked out in simple legitimate traffic stops. (too bad Bratton didn't use a similar method to smoke out illegal aliens gang members and criminals in Los Angeles.)
Q. According to Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum, of the 70 percent of Americans who support the Arizona law, 84 percent of that group support Comprehensive Immigration Reform as long as the reform includes border enforcement. Is Noorani right?
A. No one can deny that any type of reform would still require enforcement of its laws. Noorani cites a poll with questions predicated on some big IFs. He implies that this is an "either or." That is: If we passed comprehensive reform, then we wouldn't need laws like SB1070. The poll question should have also asked: Assuming that the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" that you favor were passed, would you favor having the states help the federal government in enforcing immigration law? I predict a unanimous "YES."
For the sake of argument, let's say that the Obama administration swore on a stack of bibles that if their comprehensive immigration reform passed, they would strictly enforce all immigration law. But even if you trusted the government, those like the ACLU, MALDEF, LULAC and a myriad of other anti-immigration enforcement groups would launch legal challenges opposing any immigration enforcement laws, proving that any kind of immigration reform without "Enforcement First" is unworkable.
Mark Krikorian of the Center of Immigration Studies puts it this way:
What advocates call 'comprehensive immigration reform' is sold as a package, a grand bargain, of amnesty for illegal aliens (and increased legal immigration) in exchange for tougher enforcement in the future. But if the Arizona experience has taught us anything, it's that any new enforcement measure will be tied up in the courts for years. This makes a grand bargain impossible, almost by definition: The amnesty part of the deal would be implemented immediately, while the promised enforcement would languish in court and might never survive.
