Apparently the good Bishop Hasn't Read the New Arizona Immigration Law

[elts1956]

US bishops oppose ‘draconian’ Arizona immigration law

In a statement released April 27, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) denounced a recently signed law in Arizona which criminalizes undocumented immigrants, calling the legislative move “draconian” and saying it “could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens.”

Writing on behalf of the USCCB, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ committee on Migration noted that he joins the Arizona bishops in “strongly opposing” the implementation of SB 1070, which was signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last Friday.

Explaining the specifics of the legislation, Bishop Wester stated that “SB 1070 gives law enforcement officials powers to detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard, possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity.”

I do believe there is a subset of laws prohibiting racial profiling in this law. Do the good Bishops have it wrong “again”? Did those Bishops calling this law draconian really vote for bo? I think it might be a possibility.

To read the whole article go to www.ewtnnews.com/new.php?id=508

 

[Jermosh]

Actuall they are completly correct that people can be contained based on a low legal standerd. It can be as simple as jaywalking the way the bill is written. We are not required to have ID on ourperson for walking around.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Actually, people who are aliens, legal or illegal, MUST carry ID.

 

[WatchingMedia]

All immigrants (non-citizens) must carry a Green Card (or other paperwork) on their person at all times. This is a Federal law.

Why wouldn’t these Bishops want them to obey the law of the land which is a requirement in the Catechism ?

This is the USA. Everyone in the US is presumed innocent until proven guilty - and that includes the State of Arizona police being innocent.

What are some of these Bishops thinking? They should differentiate when they are giving their own personal political opinions, so the press won’t think its coming from the Catholic Church.

Perhaps they are just like Eric Holder, Obama’s US Attorney General who admitted yesterday before Congress that he had not read the law.

 

[tafan]

As much as I am pro-immigration reform and feel like our immigration system is flawed, the rhetoric on the left about the Arizona law is ridiculous. Cops have to use the “reasonable cause” definition everyday on a lot of different civil rights issues. This is nothing new and to think that it is so horrible when checking immigration status is dumb. Will they get it wrong a few times, yes. Just like the get wrong the resonable cause requirement when searching a car. I have seen no aspects of the Arizona law that really disturb me. Now, the enforcement must be done in a humanitarian way, ie taking into account not breaking up families, etc.
But, from what I have seen and heard, the law does not seem that bad to me.

 

[Swan]

All immigrants (non-citizens) must carry a Green Card (or other paperwork) on their person at all times. This is a Federal law.

Why wouldn’t these Bishops want them to obey the law of the land which is a requirement in the Catechism ?

This is the USA. Everyone in the US is presumed innocent until proven guilty - and that includes the State of Arizona police being innocent.

What are some of these Bishops thinking? They should differentiate when they are giving their own personal political opinions, so the press won’t think its coming from the Catholic Church.

Perhaps they are just like Eric Holder, Obama’s US Attorney General who admitted yesterday before Congress that he had not read the law.

Yes, but citizens are not required to carry ID, so if they stop a citizen and ask isn’t this illegal. And how will they know? And how will I, as a citizen not required to have ID, deal with being stopped and questions (hypothetically - certainly some citizens will be questioned). And it is the people (individuals) who are presumed innocent, not the law enforcement body as an entity.

 

[JButky]

Yes, but citizens are not required to carry ID, so if they stop a citizen and ask isn’t this illegal. And how will they know? And how will I, as a citizen not required to have ID, deal with being stopped and questions (hypothetically - certainly some citizens will be questioned). And it is the people (individuals) who are presumed innocent, not the law enforcement body as an entity.

If you or anyone is stopped for breaking any type of law and you cannot demonstrate you are who you say you are with some form of ID, then law enforcement has the right to detain you until that can be established.

Why should anyone have a problem with that?

Joe B

 

[lynx]

If you or anyone is stopped for breaking any type of law and you cannot demonstrate you are who you say you are with some form of ID, then law enforcement has the right to detain you until that can be established.

Why should anyone have a problem with that?

Joe B

So basically, if you jaywalk without ID expect to be held in jail until they determine who you are But don’t worry, i’m sure the tone of your skin or the accent in your voice won’t make any difference to the officer

 

[JButky]

But don’t worry, i’m sure the tone of your skin or the accent in your voice won’t make any difference to the officer

Only if you are making the assumption that police are racist.

It’s the same all over the world. When ever I have traveled to foreign countries, you can be sure I’ve carried the appropriate paperwork with me. If you are not a citizen they need to know who you are, and why you are there. If you break the law, then they will put you in jail and/or throw you out

If, for example, you get caught here running a stop sign and don’t have your diver’s license, insurance or any proof of identity, you are going to be detained until police can determine who you are. Then they ticket you

If they find you are illegal, they turn you over to the feds. Again I ask, What is the problem with that?

Joe B

 

[pnewton]

If you or anyone is stopped for breaking any type of law and you cannot demonstrate you are who you say you are with some form of ID, then law enforcement has the right to detain you until that can be established.

Where did you get this idea? In Texas, a person can only be detained with cause. One is only required to carry a driver’s license when operating a motor vehicle. Jogging, or walking without a license is not a crime. Maybe you are thinking of Communist China, North Korea, or some other regime.

 

[pnewton]

I do believe there is a subset of laws prohibiting racial profiling in this law. Do the good Bishops have it wrong “again”? Did those Bishops calling this law draconian really vote for bo?

I do not know what bo means, but there may be a misunderstanding here. The news article you link to is a statement that is three weeks ago. Two weeks ago, the Arizona legislature amended the law to address some of the concerns present in the initial law. There was at least one statement from a bishop that opposed this bill that his concern was addressed.

 

[josephdaniel29]

So basically, if you jaywalk without ID expect to be held in jail until they determine who you are But don’t worry, i’m sure the tone of your skin or the accent in your voice won’t make any difference to the officer

First of all how many people on this forum have ever been stopped for jaywalking and second, do all of you really go out in public without your ID?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Where did you get this idea? In Texas, a person can only be detained with cause. One is only required to carry a driver’s license when operating a motor vehicle. Jogging, or walking without a license is not a crime. Maybe you are thinking of Communist China, North Korea, or some other regime.

Alright guy I need you to pay attention to the post you are responding to. JButky said…

If you or anyone is stopped for breaking any type of law and you cannot demonstrate you are who you say you are with some form of ID, then law enforcement has the right to detain you until that can be established.

Why should anyone have a problem with that?

Joe B

He said if you are stopped for probable cause you have to show ID. I’ll ask you the same question, why would anyone have a problem with that?

 

[pnewton]

Alright guy I need you to pay attention to the post you are responding to.

You are so right. I completely missed that. I am so sorry for any offense I caused you, guy.

 

[lynx]

Only if you are making the assumption that police are racist.

Racism and racial profiling are two separate things.

It’s the same all over the world. When ever I have traveled to foreign countries, you can be sure I’ve carried the appropriate paperwork with me. If you are not a citizen they need to know who you are, and why you are there. If you break the law, then they will put you in jail and/or throw you out

Assuming the officer knows who is a citizen and who isn’t, because of course you have on your “I am not a citizen” t-shirt

If, for example, you get caught here running a stop sign and don’t have your diver’s license, insurance or any proof of identity, you are going to be detained until police can determine who you are. Then they ticket you

Fair enough. What if you’re jaywalking without any form of I.D.? What if you’re loitering without a form of I.D.? What if a neighbor complains to the police that they think the 15 Hispanic looking people in the house next door aren’t all legal?

If they find you are illegal, they turn you over to the feds. Again I ask, What is the problem with that?

Nothing. My only issue is that I would prefer the legislation be more clear in what exactly qualifies you to be searched. In my opinion, probable cause is not clear enough and could lead to racial profiling or other abuse. When I was listening to John and Ken AM 640, they stated some of the reasons for probable cause, one of which was nervousness (“Kris Kobach 5PM (4/28) The Man Who Wrote The Arizona Immigration Law”, kfiam640.com/common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=JohnandKen , around the 8 minute mark) That does not sit well with me at all. The last thing I want is for anyone here illegally to claim that the law went after them for racial reasons.

 

[Brendan]

We are not required to have ID on ourperson for walking around.

Non citizen immigrants are.

My wife is Canadian and her ‘green card’ clearly says that it is to be kept on her person at all times and produced when requested by law enforcement.

The papers that she signed to get her green card said the exact same thing.

And she produces it whenever she has to produce her drivers license for governmental reasons.

 

[josephdaniel29]

You are so right. I completely missed that. I am so sorry for any offense I caused you, guy.

No offense, just giving you a hard time.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

All immigrants (non-citizens) must carry a Green Card (or other paperwork) on their person at all times. This is a Federal law.

And now it’s the law that all citizens (immigrants or not) must as well, or face the risk of spending an indeterminate time in jail until the authorities get around to proving their citizenship.
You don’t have to of course - if you’re willing to do the time. It’s not illegal for you not to carry around your Identity Papers. Just… wise.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

If you or anyone is stopped for breaking any type of law

Or there is probable cause to believe that you may have broken a law - such as someone matching your description having been seen committing a crime, or someone reports you as acting suspiciously, or you “look nervous”, or a dozen other cases where you didn’t actually break a law…

So far the only person stopped, handcuffed and detained under this law was a US citizen, born in the USA. Because he acted suspiciously by giving someone a lift.

 

[elts1956]

I am sure there will be mistakes made, but I do believe that overall this law, which enforces the Federal law will do much good. Yes innocent people will in all liklihood be mistaken for those who are not. Yes, people with darker skin may be subjected to indignities, perhaps intentionally by some,but hopefully these instances will be few. There is no such thing as a perfect world, or a perfect law. Those who think a “perfect” world can be created at any time, will eventualy find this is not possible. Neither can a ‘better’ world be created by ignoring the law, or making it easier for those who break the law. Hopefully, one day soon, we and our grandchildren will be able to wake up to a better world because of just laws.

Perhaps even the federal government will get in the game plan at last and find that Arizona is only supporting what the federal law already says.