Proposed Resolutions – Analysis

***Please read the accompanying article And Now…Your Local News first *** Below are the Proposed Resolutions which are being considered by the Board of Supervisors of Imperial County. It is a long read, so if you don’t care to read the entire script and my objections, here’s the synopsis. The major points for opposing SB 1070 are Racial Profiling, Constitutionality, and Imposition on Law Enforcement. Let me cover these themes first, and then you can decide whether you want to read the Proposed Resolutions.

Racial Profiling:

This is the most hotly debated aspect of SB 1070. SB 1070 neither increases nor decreases racial profiling. Racial profiling is a standards and training issue. Federal and State policies forbid racial profiling, detailed in discrimination and civil rights laws. Further, law enforcement agencies have policies augmenting the discrimination and civil rights laws. If an officer engages in racial profiling, it is an individual effort. Regardless of the law, the officer would engage in racial profiling. On top of that, SB 1070 specifically forbids officers from considering “race, color, or national origin in implementing” the law. Should an officer ignore all laws, policy, and human decency SB 1070 removes legal protection for that officer.

If all of that has you unconvinced, consider the following. The United States Border Patrol is a law enforcement agency. When you read SB 1070 and HB 2162, you can see that they parallel Federal laws (8 USC 1304, 8 USC 1306, 8 USC 1325, and 8 USC 1373 to name a few). So Arizona law enforcement and Border Patrol would be enforcing parallel laws. So let’s look at a statistic.

In 2008, Border Patrol apprehended 723,840 people. Of those people 718,396 came from Latin American countries, while 10,935 came from other countries. Of those apprehended 661,773 were from Mexico. Can you see where this is going? So about 99% of persons apprehend by Border Patrol are Latino, 91% were from Mexico. So where are the headlines talking about widespread racial profiling? Sure, there are radical groups complaining, but most are concerned with “stolen lands” and “Atzlan” or “Aztlan” (yeah, they can’t come to a consensus on how to spell this never, never land). Most reasonable thinkers understand that Border Patrol deals with mostly Latinos, because they comprise the bulk of illegal aliens. As such, we understand that it is not racial profiling, it is a statistical inevitability.

Now Arizona passes a law that will augment the work of Border Patrol and suddenly hysteria runs rampant? Let’s call it what it is, race baiting and political pandering.

Constitutionality:

Often in the debate the argument arises that so-and-so says SB 1070 is illegal and seeks to shred the Constitution. Blah, blah, blah, fear mongering blather. We know that the ACLU and many other groups have declared opposition to SB 1070. Undoubtedly, SB 1070 will come under review in the Judiciary. At the very least, the Circuit Courts if not the Supreme Court. So regardless of opinion, assertions, and rhetoric it is only the opinion of the Judiciary that will matter.

Imposition on Law Enforcement:

Arguments often include how SB 1070 will unduly burden law enforcement. Some law enforcement officials have come out in opposition to SB 1070. However, many more are thankful that SB 1070 has passed. Of course the mainstream media does not want to advertise that fact. So once again we are left with ignorance of SB 1070 and what it requires. So here it is…again. SB 1070 requires an officer “when practicable” to determine the immigration status of someone they have a “reasonable suspicion” might be an illegal alien, and only if checking that status does not “hinder or obstruct an investigation.” Not exactly the language of someone putting the screws to law enforcement and forcing them to make apprehension of illegal aliens a priority above all other law enforcement concerns.

**** You may stop reading now if you are bored ****

PROPOSED RESOLUTION #1:

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL DENOUNCING ARIZONA SENATE BILL SB 1070, A LAW IMPOSING UNFAIR AND POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS WHICH WILL LIKELY RESULT IN RACIAL PROFILING OF PERSONS OF COLOR AND LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY.

RESOLUTION NO. 2010-____

WHEREAS, the City of Calexico has introduced a resolution denouncing SB 1070 and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Imperial would like to pass a similar resolution; and,

WHEREAS, the Arizona legislation pass an immigration reform bill (SB 1070 and HB 2162, hereinafter “SB 1070”), which was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, on April 23, 2010 and April 30, 2010; and,

WHEREAS, [1] SB 1070 requires the police “when practicable” to detain people they “reasonably suspect” are in the country without authorization; [2] allows the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents; [3] creates a private right of action to sue cities upon belief that the government has a policy or practice that restricts immigration law enforcement; [4] and makes it a crime to stop on a public street to attempt to hire a temporary worker; and,

  • 1) True. SB 1070 allows police to detain a person for purposes of confirming immigration status.
  • 2) True. This portion of SB 1070 parallels Federal Law 8 USC 1304(e), which requires immigrants to carry proof of they are authorized to be in the United States. Violation of 8 USC 1304 is a misdemeanor.
  • 3) True. This portion of the law addresses governmental bodies that refuse to comply with State and Federal laws. Federal law 8 USC 1373 prohibits any Federal, State, or local entity from restricting any government entity or official from cooperating with US ICE. California Penal Code 384b(a) prohibits the same action. These laws make it illegal for any governmental body to declare itself a “sanctuary city.”
  • 4) False. This is a lie by omission. Leaving off the last part of this law changes the context and intent of the law. The portion “if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic” clearly shows the intent of the law, which is to ensure public safety on the roadway.

WHEREAS, SB 1070 will inevitably lead to racial profiling, jeopardize public safety, and creates a wedge between law enforcement and ethnic communities; and,

  • False. There is no data and/or statistics to support this claim. Statistics show that of the illegal aliens in the United States, most are Latino. That does not mean they will be racially profiled, it means that it is a statistical inevitability that Latinos will be more affected because they outnumber illegal aliens of other races. Further, limitations are written into SB 1070 to prevent racial profiling and removes legal protection for officials engaged in that practice.

WHEREAS, the Mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, Phil Gordon, has publically stated opposition to SB 1070; and,

WHEREAS, President Barack Obama has stated that SB 1070 threatens “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe”; and,

WHEREAS, civil rights leaders, constitutional scholars, elected officials, and police chiefs across the country are united in their opposition to SB 1070; and,

  • The preceding three clauses are not pertinent. Utilizing opinion in support of a resolution is illogical. Arizona is a sovereign state which possesses the authority to legislate laws. The question of this law is one of Constitutionality, which is in the purview of the Judiciary. Opinions of politicians and pundits are immaterial to the legal matter.

WHEREAS, SB 1070 converts federal civil immigration violations into state criminal offenses; and,

  • False. Federal immigration laws are not civil in nature. Though there is a civil assessment to the laws in terms of fines, each carry a term of incarceration. It is disingenuous to assert that Federal laws are merely civil. Again, this is ignoring portions of the law in furtherance of an agenda. Thus, SB 1070 parallels Federal immigration laws.

WHEREAS, SB 1070 requires local governments in Arizona to make enforcement of state criminal immigration violations a local law enforcement priority, thus depriving local governments from allocating limited resources to meet the greater needs of the community; and,

  • False. The complete language must be viewed in order to understand the fallacy of this assertion. SB 1070 states, “[A] reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.” This clearly demonstrates the intent that other law enforcement matters take precedence over immigration status.

WHEREAS, SB 1070 allows citizens to sue local governments if the local government has not strictly enforced applicable provisions of SB 1070; and,

  • See explanation above.

WHEREAS, SB 1070 selectively targets for criminal enforcement those who appear to be immigrants even though those persons may be citizens or in the country legally.

  • False. This assertion is a watered down version of the “racial profiling” assertion above. SB 1070 guarantees civil rights are afforded. For lawful immigrants, Federal laws require that they carry and produce documentation proving their lawful presence in the United States. Failure to do so is a Federal violation. As for natural born citizens, SB 1070 provides as proof of citizenship a variety of Federal, State, and local identifications.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it that the Imperial County Board of Supervisors declares its opposition to implementation and enforcement of SB 1070; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Clerk to send a copy of this resolution to Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer and California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, County of Imperial, State of California, on this ___ day of ___________________, 2010 by the following vote:

PROPOSED RESOLUTION #2:

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL DENOUNCING SB 1070, A LAW THAT SEEKS TO IMPLEMENT ARIZONA’S OWN SCHEME OF IMMIGRATION REGULATION THAT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO RACIAL PROFILING OF PEOPLE OF COLOR AND LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCT PERSONS, AND CALLING FOR BOYCOTT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND ARIZONA-BASED BUSINESSES

RESOLUTION NO. 2010-____

WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has introduced a resolution denouncing SB 1070 and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Imperial would like to pass a similar resolution; and

WHEREAS, Arizona’s legislature passed SB 1070, which Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law on April 23, 2010 and HR HB 2162 on April 30, 2010, and set the clock back on a generation of civil rights gains; and

  • False. Offering opinion as fact is illogical. There is no evidence to support Governor Brewer as “the clock back on a generation of civil rights gains.” Unsupported opinions have no place in a resolution. Contrary to this assertion is the fact that civil rights are acknowledged and supported by SB 1070. See my objection in Proposed Resolution #1.

WHEREAS; SB 1070 requires the police “when practicable” to detain people they “reasonably suspect” are in the country without authorization; allows the police to charge immigrants with a stak state crime for not carrying immigration documents; creates a private right of action to sue cities upon belief that the government has a policy or practice that restricts immigration law enforcement; and makes it a crime to stop on a public street to attempt to hire a temporary worker; and,

  • Same assertion as in Proposed Resolution #1, see objections above.

WHEREAS, SB 1070 will inevitably lead to racial profiling, jeopardize public safety, and creates a wedge between law enforcement and ethnic communities; and,

  • Same assertion as in Proposed Resolution #1, see objections above.

WHEREAS, President Barack Obama has stated that SB 1070 threatens “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe”; and,

  • Same assertion as in Proposed Resolution #1, see objections above.

WHEREAS, the people targeted by SB 1070 are not strangers – our American lives are inextricably bound to theirs. SB 1070 will not only intimidate our nannies and our gardeners, but also our nurses and our home care workers. And it will not stop there. It will intimidate our college students, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Everyone who looks Latino – citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary visa holders, and the undocumented – will be a primary targets under this law;

  • Not pertinent. SB 1070 targets illegal aliens. Regardless profession, all immigrants of the United States must enter and apply for residency through the legal channels. All previous generations of immigrants were expected to comply with these laws. This process ensures we are accepting persons good for the common welfare of our society. Again, claiming victim status does not make racial profiling an inevitable outcome to enforcing immigration laws. I renew my objection based on statistical data.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that unless and until Arizona rescinds SB 1070, the County of Imperial Board of Supervisors urges County departments (1) to the extent practicable, and in instances where there is no significant additional cost to the County or conflict with law, to refrain from entering into any new or amended contracts to purchase goods or services from any company that is headquartered in Arizona, (2) to not send County officials or employees to conferences in Arizona, and (3) to review existing contracts for the purchase of goods and services with companies headquartered in Arizona and explore opportunities to discontinue those contracts consistent with the terms of those contracts and principles of fiscal responsibilities; and

  • Unjustified. This assertion is based on three qualifications; racial profiling, opinions, and ignorance of law. Further, Imperial County relies on agriculture, which relies on ties with Arizona. Any ban or boycott may affect those ties. Also consider the common waterway shared with Arizona. Cooperation between Arizona and California define water rights. These are inexorable ties with Arizona which may be put in jeopardy by a ban or boycott.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Imperial Board of Supervisors encourages citizens, businesses, churches, schools, organizations, associations, and others in the county, to boycott the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses until Arizona repeals SB 1070; and

  • Unjustified. Objections given above.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Imperial Board of Supervisors calls on counties throughout the country to pass a similar resolution denouncing SB 1070 and calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses until Arizona repeals SB 1070; and

  • Unjustified. Unduly puts pressure on private businesses for the legislation enacted by the State of Arizona.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Imperial County Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Clerk to send a copy of this resolution to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, County of Imperial, State of California, on this ___ day of ___________________, 2010 by the following vote:

PROPOSED RESOLUTION #3:

RESOLUTION STATING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL DENOUNCING ARIZONA’S ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAW WHICH CALLS UPON THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND OFFICIAL TRAVEL TO THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND DEVELOP ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL SANCTIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE NEW LAW IS REVOKED.

RESOLUTION NO. 2010-____

WHEREAS, the City of West Hollywood has introduced a resolution denouncing SB 1070 and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Imperial would like to pass a similar resolution; and

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Senate Bill 1070 (Pearce) as amended by House Bill 2162 on April 30, 2010, which is the broadest and strictest immigration measure in decades; and

  • False. SB 1070 parallels Federal law, thus it is not the “broadest and strictest immigration measure.”

WHEREAS, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” requires police officers at the state, county or city level to question a person about their immigration status if there is a “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally; and

  • False. SB 1070 states “when practicable,” therefore usage of the word “requires” is disingenuous.

WHEREAS, this new law makes being in Arizona without proper identification a crime under State law and also targets those who hire and knowingly transport immigrant day laborers; and

  • False. This law requires proof of residency and/or immigration status from those running afoul of the law and being suspected of being in Arizona illegally. Additionally, this law requires proof of residency and/or immigration status for persons asking for State and/or local benefits. Thus, the burden of proof falls on those two categories of people. Those who do not run afoul of the law and/or request benefits are not required to prove their residency and/or immigration status. Therefore, it is false to say, “…makes being in Arizona without proper identification a crime…”

WHEREAS, this new law aims to identify, prosecute and deport immigrants who will also face fines and jail time; and

  • True. The purpose of SB 1070 is to increase public safety and decrease economic hardships incurred through services provided to illegal aliens. However, deportation is not a component of SB 1070. Deportation is solely under the purview of the Federal government.

WHEREAS, it is believed by many civil libertarians, immigrant-rights groups and opponents that this law will spur racial profiling and harassment; and

  • Not pertinent. These are opinions based on faulty logic and cultural sympathy. This law is designed to reduce illegal aliens present in the United States. To further explain, illegal aliens are foreign nationals. Statistically, most illegal aliens are of Latino descent. This is a statistical fact, not a racial profiling inevitability.

WHEREAS, President Obama, Latino leaders, MALDEF and the ACLIJ, among others, have criticized this law; and

  • Not pertinent. As seen with many of those opposed to SB 1070, many have not read the law, thus opinions invalid. Further, opinions are not fact and thus irrelevant.

WHEREAS, the County of Imperial has demonstrated a commitment to human rights; and

  • True. SB 1070 also advocates a commitment to human rights.

WHEREAS, the County of Imperial has been a destination for immigrant families seeking refuge; and

  • True. SB 1070 does not preclude immigrants from seeking refuge in Arizona. However, one must define an immigrant as a person who, through legal process, seeks residency in the United States.

WHEREAS, with an official ban by the County of Imperial on travel to the State of Arizona, and a review of any current and likely future contracts with Arizona-based businesses to examine the feasibility of ascertaining such products and services elsewhere until the law is revoked, we endeavor to stand in solidarity with all those who seek rational and common sense immigration reform in Arizona and the United States.

  • Unjustified. See objection in Proposed Resolution #2

NOW, therefore, be it resolved, that the Board of Supervisors of Imperial County hereby denounce Arizona’s anti-immigration law and calls upon the County Executive Officer to immediately suspend official travel to the State of Arizona and develop additional financial sanctions until such time as the new law is revoked.

  • Unjustified. See objection in Proposed Resolution #2.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, County of Imperial, State of California, on this ___ day of ___________________, 2010 by the following vote:

Proposed Resolution #4:

RESOLUTION STATING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL A RESOLUTION DENOUNCING THE NEW ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION, SB 1070, RECENTLY SIGNED INTO LAW.

RESOLUTION NO. 2010-_____

WHEREAS, the City of Las Cruces has introduced a resolution denouncing SB 1070 and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Imperial would like to pass a similar resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors supports a strong and secure national border with Mexico for the safety of its citizens; and

  • True. However, a failure by the Federal government to do so has led Arizona to act upon these tenets.

WHEREAS, a comprehensive national immigration reform is necessary; and

  • True. For years, Arizona has requested assistance and improvement from the Federal government. As the Federal government has failed, Arizona must act on its own behalf.

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors celebrates and supports the diversity of its citizens; and

  • True. Arizona also encourages and defends the process of legal immigration that supplements this diversity.

WHEREAS, illegal racial profiling is an abhorrent practice which is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States; and

  • True. SB 1070 also prohibits racial profiling.

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believes SB 1070 and HR HB 2162 may encourage and condone illegal racial profiling; and

  • False. SB 1070 has safeguards to prohibit and discourage racial profiling. A prurient desire to make this a racial issue does not create a de facto racial profiling issue.

WHEREAS, Arizona SB 1070 and HR HB 2162 appears to grant law enforcement officials the apparent power to illegally profile and discriminate along racial and ethnic bases.

  • False. SB 1070 does not grant any such powers. Quite the opposite, it is prohibited and discouraged.

NOW, therefore, the Board of Supervisors of Imperial County resolves as follows:

THAT it does not support Arizona’s immigration legislation, SB 1070 and HR HB 2162, and all its components and encourage legal review of its legality, and that it be considered for repeal; and

THAT staff is hereby authorized to do all deeds necessary in the accomplishment of the herein above.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, County of Imperial, State of California, on this ___ day of ___________________, 2010 by the following vote:

PROPOSED RESOLUTION #5:

RESOLUTION STATING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL’S OPPOSITION TO ARIZONA’S ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAW AND AFFIRMING IMPERIAL COUNTY’S PROHIBITION OF LAW-ENFORCEMENT PROFILING

RESOLUTION NO. 2010-____

  • Not pertinent. Law enforcement must profile when looking for particular suspects. Given suspect descriptors, law enforcement utilizes this technique in order to reduce the suspect pool and properly identify suspects involved in criminal activity. If Racial Profiling was intended, Law-Enforcement Profiling and Racial Profiling are two different concepts.

WHEREAS, the County of Fulton, Georgia has introduced a resolution denouncing SB 1070 and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Imperial would like to pass a similar resolution; and

WHEREAS, the government of the State of Arizona has recently enacted a law known as Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162 (“SB 1070”); and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 has been widely proclaimed to be the strictest anti-immigration law adopted by any State; and

  • False. SB 1070 is not an anti-immigration law. SB 1070 addresses the clearly recognized problem of illegal aliens living in the United States. Immigration is a Federal matter, under whose purview immigrants are issued authorization and documentation for their presence in the United States.

WHEREAS, among the provisions of SB 1070 is the requirement imposed on law enforcement officials that “where reasonable suspicion exists that [a] person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person”; and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 further requires immigrants to produce documents proving their lawful presence in the United States upon demand by law-enforcement officials; and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 also prohibits the solicitation of day laborers – a type of restriction that has been declared unconstitutional by other courts within the United States;

WHEREAS, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors has expresses expressed its opposition to all forms of discrimination based upon factors such as race, color, ethnicity, and national origin; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners finds that the principles of SB 1070 are irreconcilable with Imperial County’s commitment to a system of justice that is blind to matters of race, color, ethnicity, and national origin.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Imperial County hereby states its opposition to Arizona Senate Bill 1070.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby affirms its commitment to equal treatment of all persons, without regard to factors such as race, color, ethnicity, or nation of origin.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall be effective when passed and adopted, and that all resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with its Resolution are hereby repealed.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, County of Imperial, State of California, on this ___ day of ___________________, 2010 by the following vote:

Advertisements

About exmaninblues

I see troubling trends developing in this country and fear for its future. This blog is intended to incite others to action.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Proposed Resolutions – Analysis

  1. Jamie says:

    I just sent an e-mail to Mr. Louis Fuentes who is currently the chairman of the board at lfuentes@co.imperial.ca.us and urged him to stop wasting tax payers money and the board’s time on this issue. I urge all who read this blog to do the same. Keep up the good work.

  2. Jamie says:

    This is what I wrote initially:
    Mr. Fuentes,
    As a county tax payer I would like to formally ask you to stop wasting the time of the Board of Supervisors and its resources on any standings concerning the Arizona Law SB1070. This is the business of Arizona and its citizens and has NO BEARING on Imperial County. As a tax payer I think we as a county would be better served if you spent your time on issues that actually pertain to us. Whether you support or oppose this bill as a group will make no difference to Arizona or its constituents. STOP WASTING THE TAX PAYERS MONEY.

    This is how Mr. Fuentes responded:
    With all due respect you may not be aware of this but, when there is an increase in deportations by the enforcement of this law in Arizona….the CBP has made it a habit of releaseing these folks through the Calexico Downtown Port into Mexicali. Now these folks are not from this area, have no connection here, yet have to survive. So in the grand scheme of things, these folks now become great recruits for organized and unorganized crime.
    Lastly, it is racially motivated and it is our civic duty to call out injustices….I have yet to find anyone that can put a price on the value of a discussion.
    Louis Fuentes
    Chairman of the Board
    County of Imperial

    This was my response:
    I could not disagree more. Show me one shred of solid evidence that this is racially motivated. Many hispanic Americans that I know personally and love, strongly support this law, which is a mirror image of a pre-existing federal law. Making this a race issue is a crime all in itself. Again, it is not in the interest of our County to enter into such debate. Use your time on issues that affect this county and stop reaching for an excuse to enter into something that is NONE of our business

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s