SB 1070 opponents one-up supporters: actual terrorism!

Thursday evening I linked and briefly commented on reports of terroristic threats made against Judge Bolton by SB 1070 supporters.

There's no game of one-upmanship going on that I can discern, but there might as well be; the Arizona Daily Star reports that on Thursday afternoon a group of 8-10 SB 1070 opponents engaged in an (almost) unsuccessful act of terrorism on I-19.

Tires bound together by rope were dumped onto I-19 during rush-hour, followed by tar, paint, broken glass, and a banner. This could have caused a multi-car pileup. Fortunately, it merely caused severe traffic delays. If the faux-"civil disobedience" of downtown protesters amounted to bullying (and it did), I'm out of words, left to say that instead of death on the highway, the I-19 wackos merely achieved super-bullying.

It sounds like like the group at fault is good old-fashioned socialist or other leftist nutcases, the sort that were supposed to have died out in the 1980s. From the Daily Star's report:

Neither SB 1070 nor the deployment of National Guard troops to the border do anything to address the root causes as to why people migrate.

"U.S. economic policies and wars have displaced and impoverished millions of people all over the world. Capital-driven policies, such as NAFTA, create poverty. These policies and laws not only consume and exploit land and people, but they also displace us from our homes, forcing us to migrate in order to survive.

In linking NAFTA to migration, they're half right. And the creation of free trade in goods without also establishing free movement of people not only makes zero sense from a Ricardan point of view, it also has had the effect of class legislation. But one would have to be insane enough to be a socialist to see free trade as "exploitation".

And what any of this has to do with the I-19 commuters they could have and possibly intended to kill is anyone's guess. Then again, the left has always hated the "bourgeois" middle class, so perhaps they didn't feel a link was necessary.

A little more digging shows that the group, which calls itself "Freedom For Arizona", posted its press release to Indymedia. The name makes them sound like Ron Paullistas or teabaggers. They're clearly not, and they're as stupid (and grammatically challenged) as they are crazy. To wit:

*Partial justice is no justice at all! Despite Judge ruling to block parts of SB 1070, racial-profiling, raids, deportations and the militarization of the border will continue unchallenged. This is why today we shut down Interstate 19 (I-19)*

It appears our new left-wing terrorists don't understand what a preliminary injunction is. What they call "unchallenged" is being challenged in at least two current lawsuits.

And it gets dippier. Here's how they end:

We want an end to the militarization of indigenous land, I.C.E. raids, deportations, the attacks on ethnic studies, violence against women and queer people, the expansion of prisons and immigration detention centers, empire, the border wall and the genocide at the Arizona-Sonora border that has claimed the lives of over 153 people during the first 8 months of this fiscal year alone.

Speaking of doing it wrong: xenophobes and bigots now resorting to terroristic threats.

The Associated Press delivers a credible report of threats against Susan Bolton, the judge who issued yesterday's preliminary injunction against most of the truly onerous sections of SB 1070.

Yeah, that'll show her that the Federal government isn't likely to win its case on its merits!

The Arizona Republic also reports that someone shot at Raul Grijalva's office. Congressman Borracho should be "boycott" himself for calling for a boycott of his constituents. Perhaps those who believe it can also explain why he should be shot? It doesn't make sense.

Most of SB 1070 blocked: victory and a minor disappointment.

As readers are already aware, Judge Susan Bolton of the Arizona District Court issued an order on preliminary injunction, enjoining most of SB 1070, which was to take effect tomorrow. Few others are linking the official order, but as has been the practice since this 'blog was started, of course I do so here.

Left standing are the law's provisions

• Prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from limiting enforcement of Federal immigration law,
• requiring that State officials work with Federal officers to determine immigration status,
• allowing Arizonans to sue political subdivisions which restrict immigration enforcement to less than the full extent allowed by Federal law,
• making "harboring" or "transporting" undocumented aliens a misdemeanor
• criminalizing the inhibition of traffic by solicitation of day labor,
• establishing as a state offense the knowing or intentional employment of undocumented aliens,
• increasing requirements for verification of employment eligibility,
• and establishing the "Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund"

.
Most of these provisions are bad law. That there was no injunction does not mean that there is no longer a reasonable Federal pre-emption case against SB 1070's the requirements and penalties SB 1070 established for employers. Probably the worst bit left standing was the authorization of lawsuits. "Full extent" is a very dangerous idea: if Federal law allows a police department to spend every last dime and every man-hour on immigration enforcement, someone can sue if police do other things, like respond to calls or attempt to bring in suspects in crimes, especially the real sort that have identifiable victims. But there was never much of a Federal case against that and certainly none that merited an injunction.

It is a significant victory: most of the provisions of SB 1070 that would have led to violations of protected civil rights were enjoined from taking effect until the cases are decided. That these provisions were enjoined signifies (by legal standards) that the US DOJ can expect to succeed against them with high likelihood. I would have preferred that the order was based more on the ACLU and Co's 4th Amendment complaint than on the DOJ's concerns about preemption, but the effect is the same, at least in the near future.

---

The disappointment comes at Ms Bolton's introductory phrase:

Against a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns...

A better version would have referred to this as perception, and not reality; the court should not perpetuate folktales. This is the bigots' narrative, the history that they Just Made Up to whip up support for oppression of outsiders. This session, it became the legislature's cause of action. It is false.

SB 1070 hearings: injunction likely.

No transcripts of today's two District Court hearings concerning motions for preliminary injunction of SB 1070 are yet available, nor was a video or audio recording made. Preliminary reports are up on the websites of the Arizona Daily Star and Arizona Republic.

It's pleasing to see a hard-hitting judge assigned to the case, and from the nature and tone of questions, it appears that at least portions of the law will be enjoined, although "when" and "how much" is still up in the air.

From the Republic:

The other part of this section of the law that was addressed was the portion that states that any person arrested must have his or her immigration status determined before he or she can be released.

Bolton asked Bouma whether lawmakers really intended that anyone arrested, regardless of his or her legal status or whether the arrest involved citing and releasing someone on the spot or booking him or her into jail, had to have immigration status determined before being released from jail.

Bouma gave her several different answers at different points in the day.

He first said that U.S. citizens don't have an "immigration status" and therefore SB 1070 wouldn't apply to them. He also said that part of the law was intended to follow the part allowing officers to ask someone about their legal status, which means it would apply only to individuals suspected of being in the country illegally.

"But (police) training materials specifically acknowledge that they don't know what it means and that it will be left up to each agency to decide what that sentence means," Bolton replied, adding that she had heard from some law-enforcement authorities that this portion of the law could lead to the arrest of tens of thousands of people who otherwise would have just been cited and released.

and from the Daily Star:

One section of the law that appeared to trouble the judge says people who get arrested, for any reason, must have their immigration status checked with federal officials before they are released.

She pointed out police "arrest" people all the time for minor crimes, issue them a citation and let them go about their business. Bolton said this provision of SB 1070 would appear to require police to hold people for some extra period of time beyond what is necessary to cite and release.

Bouma said lawmakers meant to apply that only to people who actually are booked into jail.

"That's what they should have said then," Bolton responded.

Classic. "What we meant to say is...". Ordinarily that doesn't even pass the laugh test, but Arizona legislators' sloppiness with language and general ignorance are notorious. (Anyone remember the wording of the "No Taxpayer Money for Politicians" initiative, written by a few legislative heavyweights?)

It looks as though Dave Euchner's amicus brief, which pointed out the prospect for extension of detentions without probable cause, had a bit of impact there, and that the Judge Bolton is a bit hostile to that portion of the law. Also, from the Republic,

Section 3: Documentation

Section 3 of SB 1070 as amended creates the state crime of "willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document."

Attorney Nina Perales with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the civil-rights groups that filed the lawsuit along with the ACLU, said this portion of the law creates new classes of non-citizens because it doesn't offer exceptions for individuals who may be in the midst of citizenship or asylum proceedings and have permission to be in the country but don't yet have documents.

Bouma responded that that argument gets into a hypothetical "chamber of horrors" that people would be hauled off and thrown into jail to wait until someone could determine whether they belonged there.

Bolton agreed that all this portion of the law does is create a state punishment for violating federal statute. But she added that state punishment may create a pre-emption problem.

Bouma argued otherwise but then seemed to concede that he may lose on this part of the law.

"I didn't have the feeling I convinced you last week, either," Bouma said, referring to an earlier hearing.

Section 6: Removal

Section 6 of SB 1070 as amended allows law-enforcement officers to, without a warrant, arrest people suspected of committing offenses that make them "removable from the United States."

Bolton seemed to have serious concerns about this portion of the law. She said there is no list of crimes deemed to be removable offenses and questioned who would make that determination and at what point during the arrest it would be made.

"How can a police officer make a determination that a person has committed a removable offense when that decision can only be made by a federal judge?" she asked.

Plaintiffs appeared to be taking a "shotgun" approach concerning preemption, and Bolton was skeptical or even dismissive of many such claims, but as seen above, some of the pellets appear to have hit their target. Right now I'm expecting portions of the law, including prolonged detention following arrests, to be enjoined pending the cases' outcomes.

We will find out the truth about SB 1070 in 15 days.

Many commentators--radical leftists to a man--have said a lot of patently stupid things about SB 1070. Miguel Guadelupe of the "Huffington Post" claims that it imposes a "papers please" policy on anyone who looks Latino, as though "reasonable suspicion" means "stupid hunch". Tucson Communist Party factotum (no joke) Carolyn Trowbridge likened it to apartheid and ethnic cleansing. If Raul Grijalva can be said to think at all ("th" and "dr" being similar but not identical), Raul Grijalva thinks the bill so bad as to justify an economic boycott of his constituents.

A common-sense reading--taking into account that "reasonable suspicion" is a legal term of art that does not mean "a bigot's hunch"--is not the only thing that rules out "papers please." History does as well. In 1997 Chandler officials attempted an immigration-enforcement dragnet, known now as the Chandler Roundup. Policemen asked those who looked Latino to prove their citizenship, detained those who could not do so (picture Cheech Marin: "Greencard? I'm from East LA!") and as a result the city ended up paying over $400,000 to plaintiffs in a class action.

SB 1070 is bad policy and probably unconstitutional, too--see the Justice Department and the AACJ's respective Dormant Commerce Clause and 4th Amendment arguments. We can confidently say that Grijalva and co. aren't being truthful, and we can confidently call Panglossian, disingenuous, or ridiculous the right-wingers who claim that 1070 merely parallels Federal enforcement policy. Beyond that, honest observers will simply have to wait until the 29th to learn the implications of SB 1070.

One of the more pressing questions is its implications for public schools. Arizona has gone along with the (upsetting) trend of keeping a police officer around public schools through the course of the day. These officers are often friendly with the schoolkids and may learn something about students' immigration status either directly or through word of mouth. Suppose a student is lawfully stopped due to participation in a fight and the "school resource officer" has heard that he's in the country illegally. Does SB 1070 require prolonged detention and an inquiry into the student's visa status?

Jack Chin's whitepaper law review article (very much worth reading) provides some clues as to SB 1070's effects outside of schools. Among his claims are that it's a racial profiling bill, but he's not using "racial profiling" to mean what it's commonly taken to mean. "Racial profiling" to the average Joe means "treated like a criminal because I'm (e.g) black", but in Chin's usage it applies even if ethnic appearance is merely one factor among many used in a police decision to stop or detain someone. Perhaps the most important document, however, are the new police guidelines issued by AZ POST.

While it emphasizes the totality of circumstances, the POST guidelines document features a troubling bulleted list of criteria for reasonable suspicion. Copied verbatim:

FACTORS WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED, AMONG OTHERS, IN DEVELOPING REASONABLE SUSPICION OF UNLAWFUL PRESENCE
•Lack of identification (if otherwise required by law)
•Possession of foreign identification
•Flight and/or preparation for flight
•Engaging in evasive maneuvers, in vehicle, on foot, etc.
•Voluntary statements by the person regarding his or her citizenship or unlawful presence (Note that if the person is in custody for purposes of Miranda, he or she may not be questioned about immigration status until after the reading and waiver of Miranda rights.)
•Foreign vehicle registration
•Counter-surveillance or lookout activity
•In company of other unlawfully present aliens
•Location, including for example: A place where unlawfully present aliens are known to congregate looking for work, A location known for human smuggling or known smuggling routes
•Traveling in tandem
•Vehicle is overcrowded or rides heavily
•Passengers in vehicle attempt to hide or avoid detection
•Prior information about the person
•Inability to provide his or her residential address
•Claim of not knowing others in same vehicle or at same location
•Providing inconsistent or illogical information
•Dress
•Demeanor – for example, unusual or unexplained nervousness, erratic behavior, refusal to make eye contact
•Significant difficulty communicating in English

Some of these are extremely problematic, elevating mere "suspicious" behavior--familiar to anyone who's ever been in the company of e.g. illegal gamblers or paranoid pot smokers--to "reasonable suspicion" of a particular civil offense having to do with visa status. And as Martin Escobar noted in his complaint, skill with the English language is no indicator of status as an alien, let alone of visa status.

What remains to be seen is how many of these criteria must be satisfied before police decide that they have "reasonable suspicion" and apply SB 1070--and how many lawsuits police departments will get from bigots who think they're not being loose enough with their standards of suspicion. Taking Phoenix Law Enforcement Association president Mark Spencer's
remarks to the Arizona Republic as being representative, I predict that most policemen will err on the side of caution. Somewhere--and it wouldn't surprise me if "somewhere" was either in Prescott Valley, Chandler, or anywhere under the MCSO's watch--a policeman or department will push at the boundaries and ruin someone's day. (MCSO goons were doing this long before SB 1070.) That person will "win the lottery", so to speak. A bad day followed by litigation, probably with a lawyer on the case pro bono, and a large payout from the public purse.

That's hardly "apartheid" or "papers please". If, on the 29th, I turn out to be wrong, I'll correct myself here. I don't expect the Miguel Guadalupes, Carolyn Trowbridges, and Raul Grijalva's of the world to be honest enough to do the same; if I turn out to be correct, they should be brought to account: removed from positions of public trust, fired from newspapers (Guadalupe was not merely wrong: he was wild), and shunned from polite company until they issue retractions, apologize, and preferably make some sort of material amends for the harm they did to working Arizonans by their boycott-inducing exaggeration.

A sign that Arizona ecotourism is less popular than usual this year.

Aravaipa Canyon permits, especially for the west entrance, usually come very close to selling out on the weekends and sometimes even on weekdays. This year only 25 September and 2 October

Could it be that the (probably incorrect) that SB 1070 will actually be widely oppressive (as opposed to symbolic, a nuisance, and a sure-win lottery ticket for the few it affects) is keeping eco-tourists away?

SB 1070: The worst that could happen.

Born in East LA from CheechAndChong

Also see the film of the same name. Sheriff Joe's goons actually did this to some kids in the Phoenix area earlier this decade, and it wasn't funny. I can't remember their names or how to find it quickly at this point. Eleanor Eisenberg would know.

No, I don't think this is likely, but it seems to be what the wild imaginations of e.g. Raul Grijalva, Kyrsten Sinema, and Phil Gordon have thought SB 1070 to be. More on that later.

Important new SB 1070 brief filed: AACJ says law requires 4th Amendment violations.

A section heading sums it up: "SB 1070 manufactures cause"

Today four lawyers from the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the state affiliate of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed what is probably the most important brief to date on SB 1070. Therein they argue that violation of established 4th Amendment standards of suspicion inheres in the mandates of 1070. To quote:

The statutory scheme created by SB 1070 would subject individuals to de facto arrests absent adequate constitutional protections. SB 1070 proposes to substitute reasonable suspicion for the well-established requirement that an arrest must be justified by probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. Even in cases where an investigative stop by police is justified by reasonable suspicion, it is possible for police to exceed the permissible scope of the stop and convert an investigative detention into a de facto arrest, and SB 1070 seeks to do just that...

A person’s immigration status is not something that can be determined by state and local law enforcement officers, or even by federal immigration officers, in the context of a brief investigatory detention. Instead, persons seized will be subject to a prolonged detention, for which the Fourth Amendment demands a finding of probable cause. SB 1070, however, permits this prolonged detention without the requisite finding of probable cause that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

Those who've been following the matter may recall that in an interview with the Arizona Republic Mark Spencer of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association claimed that, in the paper's hypothetical stop scenari (that other interview participants thought would have SB 1070 implications), no reasonable suspicion concerning immigration status existed therefore SB 1070 mandated nothing. The AACJ amicus brief goes further than this, arguing (much more intelligently than Martin Escobar's lawyers did in their sloppy "first post!!!!1111!!" complaint filed immediately following the bill's passage) that there's almost no way a policeman could possibly have reasonable suspicion that someone was in the US illegally:

In Arizona specifically, reliance on race, language, and dress as the basis for reasonable suspicion used to justify a seizure all but guarantees a constitutional violation.

In a 1985 class action against the INS for engaging in a pattern of unlawful stops to interrogate persons of Hispanic appearance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hispanic appearance and presence in an area where illegal aliens travel is not enough to justify a stop. Nicacio, 797 F.2d at 703. In that case, the government also used the manner of dress as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis. However, the Court rejected that factor, noting that such “characteristics were shared by citizens and legal aliens in the area, as well as illegals. As the district court found, the appearance and dress factors relied upon by the agents ‘are a function of the individual’s socioeconomic status.’” Id. at 704....

The scheme employed by SB 1070 pays lip service to the constitution by stating that race cannot be the sole factor for making a stop. However, as seen in decades of case
law, officers routinely use race as the primary basis for a stop and cite “rote” factors as described in Rodriguez or “profiles” of driving behavior such as those described in Gonzalez-Gutierrez that do not distinguish criminal activity from innocent activity. All too often, our attorneys see cases filed by law enforcement officers of all jurisdictions where the initial stop was based on the driver’s demeanor. Included in the list of factors to be used for determining reasonable suspicion include the driver looking at an officer in a parked vehicle as he passes and the driver not looking at the officer...

“Unlawful presence” is a highly technical term, meant to describe the status of individuals who are present in the United States without the proper governmental authorization. Just like citizenship, it cannot be determined by physical appearance or language, but is established by operation of law...

SB 1070 poses an immediate and irreparable harm in that it compels the unlawful detention of U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country. The prolonged detention requirement of A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) immediately violates the rights of every U.S. citizen in Arizona of “Mexican ancestry” or “Hispanic appearance.” Although the statute allows a presumption of lawful immigration status if the Hispanic
citizen produces an Arizona state driver’s license, there is certainly no requirement under Arizona law for a citizen to possess a driver’s license when he or she leaves home each day. And as a citizen, a person of Hispanic appearance or Mexican descent, of course, does not possess valid immigration documents because he or she is not an immigrant.

The brief has been filed in support of the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in the ACLU Foundation / National Immigration Law Center/ MALDEF Friendly House et al vs Whiting et al lawsuit. The complaint is also worthwhile reading. If nothing else, read the descriptions of the individual plaintiffs: instant rebuttals to the glib right-wingers who think that only illegal aliens will be negatively affected by this law.

Brief authors are, in order listed, David J. Euchner, Louis S. Fidel, Matthew H. Green, and Adam N. Bleier, all Tucson-based defense lawyers. Green's has enough reputation as an immigration lawyer for me to recognize the name; Euchner is an assistant public defender and well-established activist on behalf of various good causes. No word on who wrote what, but large portions have the understated, incisive wit that Euchner brings to everything except his dull, pedantic, and irredeemably awkward contributions to the Arizona and National Libertarian Party platforms. (Which is a way of saying that it's good to see him moving on to better things.)


A final aside: Have a look at Footnote 1. Clever! Complaining that SB 1070 doesn't define "reasonable suspicion" is forgivable when e.g. Facebook commenters do so, but recall that this has been one of Kyrsten Sinema's gripes. However dippy she is, she's a lawyer. She should know better.

According to Russell Pearce, an illegal alien could assassinate Russell Pearce with impunity.

According to Russell Pearce, an illegal alien could assassinate Russell Pearce with impunity.

He didn't actually say that, but he's quoted as follows in the Arizona Capitol Times:

Pearce’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment is much different than the definition established by the Supreme Court. He said the 14th Amendment makes it clear that, in order to be granted citizenship, a person born in the U.S. must also be under the jurisdiction of U.S. government. He said the federal government has misinterpreted that clause by allowing children of illegal immigrants to become citizens even though, as he sees it, they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

“We don’t have jurisdiction over those who break into the country,” Pearce said. “Just like a foreign diplomat, we have no jurisdiction over them.”

That's new! "No jurisdiction" means that an illegal alien cannot be made to stand trial in a US court and cannot be sued except if he consents to be sued. If Pearce is correct, this would mean (among other things) that an illegal alien fed up with Pearce's contribution to absurd "enforcement first" opposition to immigration reform or perhaps with his attempts to incite pogroms could simply kill him and never have to answer for the crime.

Yes, this means that Arizona is "making news" again. At least with SB 1070 we could say that half of the attention was either hyperventilation of those who expect the courts to make a worst-case change of standards of reasonable suspicion or due to (deliberate) misrepresentation of what was in the law. (It does not, for example, establish a new trespassing offense.) And at least in the case of "ethnic studies" we could say that the prohibition of teaching crass ideology (much different than teaching history or teaching about ideology) on the taxpayer dime was justified. But this time, the press is dead-on: Pearce and John Kavanagh intend to introduce a bill in the next legislative session to challenge settled 14th Amendment law.

Kavanagh's justification (as quoted by CNN) is almost as loony as Pearce's:

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Yep, Kavanagh has gone to that modern-day last refuge of scoundrels on Constitutional matters, the same place the Brady Center went on the 2nd Amendment: original intent. When one cannot support one's position by textualism or, barring that, by appeal to some theory of law, pretend that one's own position is that of (all of!) those who drafted and adopted the law and that such "intent" should trump public meaning. "What they meant to say was: ___[wacky mad libs]___"

Original intent is an intellectual nonstarter and anyone advocating it in 2010 is an ignoramus, a sleaze, or a simple doofus. As legal theory it has been dead for over two decades and was rotten long before that. But unlike Pearce's position, taking it seriously doesn't lead to Kavanagh's assassination, unless...

Why I take my hat off to Martin Escobar.

Arizona's longtime paleocon/populist blowhard Ernest Hancock, whatever his many faults, has made a few good observations over the years. One to remember is that if you have a "government number" it is far easier to get attention. Translating "government number" out of Ernie-speak, that means that if you are participating in some sort of governmental process, be it by running for office or filing a lawsuit, you will more likely be considered newsworthy.

Tucson, AZ policeman Martin Escobar probably doesn't know who Ernie Hancock is, but appears to have taken that advice. His lawsuit, alleging violations of his 42 U.S.C. §1983, First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment protected rights due to SB 1070, gained him national attention. The text of the complaint may be found on CNN.com and several other news outlets; the last time I checked, it wasn't yet available from the courts, but probably will be. National attention, yes, but on reading the complaint, the lawsuit appears not only frivolous but blatantly and unapologetically frivolous. Escobar doesn't appear to have suffered injury, be compelled to suffer injury, or otherwise have standing, and his counsel doesn't even try to link the pages upon pages of Escobar's reflections on policing in southern Tucson to his allegations of rights violations.

But my hat goes off to Escobar, not for the publicity in itself, but for bringing the realities of policing in Tucson south of 22nd Street to public attention. A document with a "government number" explaining that neither use of the Spanish language, nor dressing in a Mexican fashion, nor listening to norteño music, nor ethnic appearance, nor skill with the English language constitute reasonable suspicion that one is an alien, let alone an alien without the right visa, now exists, both as a matter of public record an in the popular consciousness. Escobar himself now has the name recognition for ACLU-AZ or whoever else will bring eventual Fourth or Fifth Amendment suits concerning the enforcement of SB 1070 to think of him when they need expert testimony concerning the meaning of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" when visa status is in question.

A single frivolous lawsuit will likely achieve far more than the dumbed-down chants of thousands of protesters.

The Everyday Boycotts of San Francisco

On the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial page, a witty rejoinder:

...This city is losing revenue every day as a result of inaction from City Hall. They might not use the term "boycott," but the businesspeople and tourists who don't return because of their disgust with the condition of the streets or concerns about their safety represent lost dollars. So do the entrepreneurs or developers who go elsewhere because of the regulatory thicket here...

Read the whole thing.

If boycotts are to be how we settle internal differences in this country, then San Francisco is deserving. The health-care bill for which they share a good deal of responsibility--who sent Pelosi to the House?--affects us far more than SB 1070 affects them, and what it does to people, assuming that "Probable Cause" means in SB 1070 what it has always meant, is more morally repugnant.

But that aside, yes, there's good reason to "go elsewhere". San Francisco is a great place to eat, and the architecture is cute, but it's frustrating in ways even this ex-New Orleanean can't take. Very recently I attended a scientific conference in San Francisco at the Moscone Center, their convention center. I don't recommend Moscone at all. It isn't that there was anything wrong with the facility, but the staff were overwhelmingly rude at times it counted the most. Among other things, a very rule-oriented, European mentality was displayed. For example: After having been jerked around the night before by staff and getting there early, nobody could put up posters at 7:55. Not until 8 AM sharp. A handful (or two) of incidents such as this made it such that I and many others recommended not going there in the future.

In Phoenix the staffers may have voted for Sheriff Joe, but at least they're polite and have American attitudes.

The partition of Arizona

"Baja Arizona" has been tossed about for a while to describe Southern AZ. I'd like to think it the more sober portion of Arizona, the one that put solidly Goldwater Republican Jim Kolbe in the house for eleven terms.

A friend just coined a new complement to this: Phoenix and environs as "Loco Arizona". Not a bad label for the portion of the state populated by geriatric immigrants from places like Ohio, Indiana, and the Chicago suburbs who come here, grow green lawns, and get upset over rattlesnakes, "dry heat", and Mexicans of any citizenship.

Should there be an Arizonan divorce? The problem with Baja Arizona is that it isn't just Kolbe territory. (I'd bring up Giffords, but she caved on the community rating mandate/high deductible ban bill). It also sends far-leftist union stooge Grijalva to the House cycle after cycle. And it's home to the U of A, the "Salt of the Earth Labor College", and the geriatric folks from back east whose political opinions come straight out of 1935, market abolitionism and all. Baja Arizona is Soviet Snowbirdistan.

SB 1070 probably isn't the big deal the Soviet Snowbirdistan types are making of it--that'll depend on whether or not police departments elect to violate Constitutional standards in its enforcement. (That isn't a given.) And recall that the tension between Arizona's lunatics makes AZ the eighth most liberal state in the Union. Without Phoenix, we'd be Massachusetts. And perhaps without Tucson, we'd be everything the San Franciscans and media whores are currently imagining we are.

But I do like "Loco Arizona". That should stick.

I can has boycott?

A few remarks on the "Boycott Arizona" idea:

1. SB 1070 doesn't go into effect until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
   
2. ICE decides which police forces can and cannot enforce immigration law, and can render this moot.
   
3. Governor Brewer has noted that AZ law enforcement will be expected to comply with Constitutional standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. To remark--before the law goes into effect--that SB 1070 will bring about violations of basic rights is premature. It will do so if the various police forces and Sheriff's departments screw up.
   
4. In light of the above, if Brewer is right, this is a policy that at worst willhurt AZ policing by tying up police time (and wasting taxpayer money) on doing ICE's job and enforcing bad Federal policy.
   
5. The people pushing for a boycott, mostly Democrats, are hypocrites until they call for an open-border immigration policy. By "protecting" union labor against competition, they created this problem--this problem exists because there is not an open immigration policy--and leftists are largely responsible for the popular misconception that open immigration hurts Americans. That this was picked up by populist reactionaries on the Right doesn't change history.
   
6. This is really a bad road to go down.
   
   Shall we boycott Vermont because they sent someone who identifies as "socialist" to the Senate? (If socialism isn't as morally repugnant to you as racial profiling, you need to think harder about socialism. It's government interference in almost everything in life that matters.)
   
   Or, getting to more practical concerns: Shall we boycott every state that has a Democratic senator? The ban on major-medical insurance (and the killing of HSAs that will result), the tighter coupling of health care to health insurance and health insurance to employment, the mandate of community rating, all of this harms people at least as much as the racial profiling that will supposedly result from SB 1070. And given the opportunity to pass sensible reform, decoupling insurance from employment, moving the US off of the insurance-as-insulation model, the Democrat health care bill was a disgrace. Shame and harm. Where's the boycott of California? Arizonans have as much reason to boycott San Francisco--San Franciscans put Nancy Pelosi in the House--as San Francisco would have to boycott AZ were the hyperbolic claims about SB 1070 actually true. And why didn't we boycott Massachusetts when they enacted a Europe-style health care system, one that has been a failure yet served as a model for the Democrat bill?
   
   Why aren't we boycotting Chicago (responsible for IL's backwardness) over firearms policy?
   
   Oppressive firearms policy and health care policy is, again, at least as bad as the cynical fantasy versions of SB 1070. If boycotts will be the response, we might as well dissolve the Union.
   
7. Talk of "revealed preference" is usually bluster--it fails to take into account irrationality--but it applies directly to boycotts. Talk is cheap. That ordinary people--not publicity whore celebrities--will cancel trips to the Grand Canyon or conventions in Phoenix is doubtful.
   

SB 1070, not as bad as it could have been

SB 1070, which could be called the Russell Pearce Omnibus, was sent to the Governor's office this Monday.

The bill:

• Requires, without regard for limited resources, that police spend time determining--or attempting to determine--the immigration status of anyone arrested.
  
• Makes employ of illegal aliens by private business, or even hiring an illegal immigrant to mow one's lawn, a State issue.
  
• Criminalizes hiring of day laborers if picking one up momentarily disrupts the traffic flow.
  
• Criminalizes transporting an illegal immigrant in one's vehicle with no exception. Driving a bleeding illegal immigrant to the hospital would be an offense. Extreme cases aside, this is mandatory social ostracism.
  

Moreover, whether or not the bill requires police to prioritize immigration enforcement is ambiguous. It does allow Arizonans to bring action against any governmental subdivision which restricts immigration enforcement below the "full extent permitted by Federal law". That could be taken to mean that any police force authorized to enforce immigration laws (the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department lost that power!) would have to spend all of its time doing so.

It could have been worse: early versions of the bill changed trespass statutes to make those without the Federal visas guilty of a state offense of "trespassing".