What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?
 

Now that ALL Mexicans in AZ MUST carry their papers proving citizenship, because the police can stop ANYONE they "reasonably" suspect might be here illegally. Who decides what "reasonable" is?

Martin Niemoller
Communists, Socialists & Jews
Martin Niemoller was a decorated u-boat captain in the First World War but subsequently became a minister of religion and a relatively high profile opponent of the Nazis as they increasingly gained firm hold of the reins to power in Germany.

Niemoeller was active as a leader in a so-called Pastors' Emergency League and in a Synod that denounced the abuses of the dictatorship in the famous "Six Articles of Barmen." Such activities finally led to his arrest on 1 July 1937. When the subsequent court appearance was followed by his release with only a modest 'slap on the wrist' Hitler personally ordered his incarceration with the result that Niemoeller remained in concentration camp, including long periods of solitary confinement, until the end of the war.

Niemoller occasionally traveled internationally after the war and delivered many speeches and sermons in which he confessed of his own blindness and inaction in earlier years when the Nazi regime rounded up the communists, socialists, trade unionists, and, finally, the Jews.

In this regard he framed a now famous quotation that is often presented in a corrupted form. Niemoller himself however lived through the events associated with the Nazi seizure of absolute power and knew which groups had been persecuted by the Nazis and also knew the order in which those groups had come particularly under persecution.


First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


Since preparing the above quotation we have received an e-mail from one of our German visitors who took the trouble to visit the Martin Niemoeller Foundation web site (www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de) to track down their version of the famous quotation. He has provided the following translation of the quotation available at the Martin Niemoeller Foundation web site:-
When the Nazis came for the communists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; I was, of course, no Social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no trade unionist.
When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

That's what I've been asking, and haven't heard any thoughts on the subject. Too tricky to respond to: would have to put down "We's AMERICANS" placards to thoroughly comtemplate and discuss that slippery slope. Could we leave the language as open-ended as possible, to allow police officers to use their own personal discretion in such matters? Yeah, that won't be a problem. :eyebrow:

And, as I said initially, will we make them wear armbands?

Pure fascism . . .

This is something that Godwin's law (as popularly understood, not as originally phrased) does not apply to.

The governor said she had no idea what would constitute someone looking suspiciously illegal, but she wouldn't tolerate any profiling. And then signed it anyway.

So I guess she just needs to hire psychic cops!

So is being suspicious looking a primary offense? Does anyone know?

Yup.

Thank you! Do you have a link to anything that explains it further? The news stories are all very vague...

Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the United States legally, which critics say will foster racial profiling but supporters say will crack down on illegal immigration.

The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.

"This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States," Brewer said after signing the bill.

"Racial profiling is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona," Brewer said.

The rules, to be established in by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board, are due back to her in May. The law goes into effect 90 days after the close of the legislative session, which has not been determined.

What will Arizona's immigration law do?

Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime.

Brewer's executive order was in response to critics who argue that the new law will lead to racial profiling, saying that most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.

"As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement accountable should this stature ever be misused to violate an individual's rights," Brewer said.

She added that the law would probably be challenged in courts and that there are those outside Arizona who have an interest in seeing the state fail with the new measure.

"We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves."

The bill is considered to be among the toughest immigration measures in the nation. Supporters say the measure is needed to fill a void left by the federal government's failure to enforce its immigration laws.

Read the full text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (PDF)



Video: Immigration law lead to profiling?

Video: Reaction to Arizona's immigration law

Video: Arizona governor signs immigration bill

Video: Obama: immigration bill 'misguided'
RELATED TOPICS
Immigration
Arizona
Barack Obama
Its leading sponsor, state Sen. Russell Pearce, said this week, "Illegal is not a race; it's a crime."

"We're going to take the handcuffs off of law enforcement. We're going to put them on the bad guy," said Pearce, a Republican.

Fellow Republican state Sen. Frank Antenori said the biggest reason he supported the bill was because a rancher in one of the counties he represents was murdered by someone who crossed the U.S. border with Mexico illegally. He said the person of interest in the killing had crossed the border numerous times and cited other similar violent crimes.

"The citizens of this state are tired of the catch and release that is going on by the federal government where they grab people, they process them, and they take them back and drop them on the other side of the border," Antenori said. "They just come back, and we have no border security down here."

After the signing, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, which had opposed the measure, issued a statement saying, "law enforcement professionals in the State of Arizona will enforce the provisions of the new law to the best of their abilities."

The state's largest police union, the Arizona Police Association, is in favor of the law.

In the hours leading up to the bill's signing, about 2,000 people rallied at the Arizona capital, and President Barack Obama, in the nation's capital, called the legislation "misguided" but said the federal government must act on the immigration issue.

Read excerpts from remarks Friday by Obama and Brewer

"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten 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," the president said at a naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the military.

Brewer's counterpart in neighboring New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson, called the new law "a terrible piece of legislation."

"It's against the democratic ideals of this country," he told CNN's "Situation Room." "It's a step backwards. It's impractical."

He said the law would not combat the problem of illegal immigration or take the place of comprehensive reform.

iReport: Share your thoughts on immigration policy

Latino members of Congress also slammed the bill.

"When you institutionalize a law like this one, you are targeting and discriminating at a wholesale level against a group of people," Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, said Tuesday.

Grijalva closed his two district offices Friday when an unidentified caller threatened to blow up his Tucson office and kill his staff members. The caller also said he was going to be "exercising my civil liberties, and I'm shooting Mexicans at the border," according to Grijalva's district director, Ruben Reyes, who fielded one of the calls.

Grijalva and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Immigration Reform, had called on Brewer to veto the measure.

Gutierrez is a leading supporter of a proposed overhaul of U.S. immigration laws and said the Arizona issue shows why an overhaul is necessary. He has urged Obama to "put his back into the push" and to let Arizona know that federal law trumps state legislation on immigration.

Challenges expected - Coverage from CNN affiliate KPHO

The Virginia-based Hispanic Leadership Fund also criticized the law, saying in a written statement, "Having to 'carry your papers' is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes -- not of the Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers wisely passed on to us. Arizonans and all Americans deserve an immigration system that works, not a draconian big government desecration of the Bill of Rights."

Brewer said that "decades of federal inaction and misguided policies" have created "a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

The governor said Arizona's law mirrors federal statutes on immigration enforcement, "despite the erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise."

Asked what criteria will be used to establish reasonable suspicion of someone's legal status, Brewer said, "I don't know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

However, she added, her executive order requires the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board to address the issue.

"I know that if AZPOST gets [itself] together, works on this law, puts down the description, that the law will be enforced civilly, fairly and without discriminatory points to it."

"A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

.

No, my understanding is from the radio, unfortunately.

have no idea what your point is about this neemroller guy, but I suspect he'd think -- man, it's hot here!

Is this new? Why wouldn't they have to carry that with them all the time?There is your answer.
Were they there legally or illegally.
I agree with that - same as the last several administrations on this issue.

Yup
Is that true? Anyone have a link to what they are? Are they just not being enforced or???

I was a legal resident of the USA for 13 years before we became citizens. I did not have to 'carry papers'. In fact, I did not carry any form of identification.

I still go for walks around my neighborhood without identification. I have that right. However, in Arizona, I better not do that ever again.

This legislation makes me sick.

Belgium
Everyone above the age of 12 is issued an identity card and from the age of 15 carrying this card at all times is mandatory. For foreigners residing in Belgium similar cards are issued, although they may also carry a passport, a work permit or a (temporary) residence permit.
~~~
France
France has had a national ID card since 1940.
Today, the law mentions only that during a ID check performed by police one can prove his identity "by any means", the validity of which is left to the judgment of the law enforcement official. The decision to accept other documents, with or without the bearer's photograph, is left to the discretion of the law enforcement officer.
Random checks of passers-by ID by the French police are quite common
~~~
Germany
It is compulsory for all German citizens age 16 or older to possess either an identity card or a passport but not to carry one. While police officers and some other officials have a right to demand to see one of those documents, the law does not state that one is obliged to submit the document at that very moment. But as driver's licences are not legally accepted forms of identification in Germany, most persons actually carry their Personalausweis with them.
~~~
Greece
A compulsory, universal ID system based on personal ID cards has been in place in Greece since World War II.
Since 2005, the procedure to issue an ID card has been automated and now all citizens over 12 years of age must have an ID card, which is issued within one work day. Prior to that date, the age of compulsory issue was at 14 and the whole procedure could last several months.
~~~
Italy
Citizens are not required by law to carry the ID card with them at all times, but since it is instead mandatory for a citizen to have his ID card when outside his comune of residence and since a citizen is required to promptly show the ID card to the authorities upon request or face possible retention for identification, Italian citizens are de facto required to have the Identity Card or another ID with them at all times.
~~~
China
The People's Republic of China requires every citizen above the age of 16 to carry an identity card.
~~~
Costa Rica
Every Costa Rican citizen must carry an identity card after turning 18.
~~~
Chile
Every Costa Rican citizen must carry an identity card after turning 18.

and on and on...
Link

But they're Belgians
~~~
Wasn't France occupied by the Nazis then?
~~~
Nazis, what do you expect?
~~~
Men are allowed to keep theirs in their boyfriends' rectums.
~~~
Because if they didn't have IDs, they'd forget their own names.
~~~
Come on. In China, it's so easy to get lost in the crowd that IDs don't matter. And everybody has the same description - eyes: brown, hair: brown
~~~
Who cares?
~~~
No, kinda warm.

Do all those countries have national healthcare, too?

Who cares?

Ah, ok thanks, that link is really helpful.
The part you quoted starts here though (bold mine).

So I guess it depends on these 'rules' that they haven't made yet will be the determining factor. And either they will conform with the 4th amendment or they won't, and it will be struck down.

I totally agree with the rest of what I've quoted here but would rather see the law fail than be unconstitutional.

United States
All citizens are required to have a Social Security card from childhood, and at age 18 all males are required to register with the United States Selective Service.

but you don't have to carry your government docs with you at all times

My point is if people other than those targeted by this law don't speak out against it, pretty soon, it won't be long before we get targeted by similar laws and there won't be anyone around to speak out for us.

But the spirit of this law is not to invade our privacy, or force us to 'carry papers'. It's to make it easier for Illegal Aliens to be caught. Because they are Illegal. They can't be 'persecuted' like the poem above's author.... they don't have any rights in this country if they are here illegally. Logically speaking, not practically of course.

Therein lies the rub. At least they are doing something. That is more than the the past administrations have done. But again, until we control our own borders nothing will really change.

I do. But I do not really support the idea of everyone carrying national ID cards. But I do think all illegals should be registered or deported.

Regardless what happens in this case, that scenario is in the future for everyone in this country. As the world population increases, and with it competition for resources, and the radical Islamic factions get more aggressive, it'll become a necessity.

As soon as they sneak on the American soil, the scumbags have all kinds of constitutional protections.

then again....if we adopted the practice of gruesomely amputating the left hand of any captured illegal alien, and sending them home to tell the tale......

A group of well placed munitions would fix the issue and funnel the immigrants.

Not "us", just people worried a cop might think they seem illegal. If you look real legal, you don't need papers.

We're going to the Grand Canyon in August. Does this new law mean we need to travel with our passports to Arizona? I can't find anything anywhere that says what Arizona considers to be proof of citizenship. We're white and speak English well, but it will be summer time and we might all be a little tan by then.

Do we need our passports? If I don't have my passports, and a cop pulls me over for speeding or something, are they legally able to detain us all for a few days while we dig up proof that we are legal?

Driver's license should do it if you get pulled over for speeding glatt. And unless your kids start screaming about you not being their father/parents they shouldn't arouse suspicion...

right, so if you're white enough, and prosperous enough, you won't look suspicious.

some people think (not sure if I'm among them) that the "spirit" of the law is less to address immigration problems, than to address the upcoming election.

I agree. But it could also be drastic measures, that probably will not hold up in court, to draw attention to the big elephant in the corner of the room, lack of a clear and enforcable immigration policy.

I think it's a tough and emotional problem, with implications not only for security, money, jobs, but also for families, and honestly, we've had bigger fish to fry for a while. Well, ready or not, the issue's on the table now.

I just have a hard to time blaming law enforcement for the immigration problem. You can assume they will abuse their position and use this law to harass people.... but why?

What about hispanic cops? Can we at least assume that they would administer the law correctly?

I don't know jinx, but people just don't trust cops, and illegal aliens certainly have good reason to fear the police. I think a lot of places have probably worked pretty hard to break into that fear to get them to report real crime against them. Now they have that wall back up again. I wonder how many will just not detain or arrest them as the law says they should.

Will they be abusing their position if it's actually legal for them to do it?

Legal for them to harass people?
The way I read and understood the law, the will have the right to inquire about immigration status of someone they have legally detained for another reason. I guess you could call that harassment, but how else would they know if someone is illegal?
If you're opposed to enforcement of immigration laws to begin with you're not going to agree with any of this, I get that.

According to CNN:

I think the law says that they can pull you over for speeding and instead of giving you a ticket and letting you drive away, they can now give you the ticket and throw you in jail until you can prove you are a citizen. They now have that legal power. Whether they choose to do it to a particular person or not is entirely up to them. If you are a citizen, or a legal immigrant, and don't have papers on you, you will eventually get around to proving that fact and be released from jail, but you will probably consider it a hassle.

Throwing people in jail is not a reasonable attempt when practical by any stretch of the imagination.

But if you've actually been arrested for something, they will determine your immigration status before you are released. That what it says.

If I ever get arrested, having to rattle off my soc. sec. number will be the least of my concerns.

if you're driving, you should have your driver's license with you.

can an illegal immigrant get a driver's license in Arizona?

If you're a legal immigrant on a VISA, wouldn't you keep it handy? or know the numbers by heart?

Ya think? Maybe thats because they are criminals. Maybe thats a better term for them. Illegal criminals.
(ya I know its a double - that was intentional)
I don't particularly like the laws vagueness nor do I like the idea of just granting them amnesty. That seems to be a very short-sighted, politically motivated answer.
We'll be in the same position in a few years or a decade again as they will continue to flood through.

Again and again, Until we secure the borders, nothing will change.

The danger with this sort of approach isn't so much the conscious abuse of it, but the way it can be informed by an individual's own prejudices and fears. And that isn't to say I think cops are racist...probably some are, likely many aren't: but we all have some prejudices. Even if we don't hold a particular set of views, our instinctive responses may not always make us proud of ourselves :P

I notice islamic dress in a way I never did before. It was always there; I just didn't really pay it any attention. Now, I notice a group of asian lads in islamic clothes and I feel a kind of tension. If a police officer on the beat notices more as well, and is particularly focused on the anti-extremism agenda, then the addition of arbitrary stop and search powers becomes a dangerous thing. Not because the police officer is necessarily racist, or even anti-Islam: just aware and with the power to stop anyone who looks 'suspicious'.

If the police in Arizona are particularly focusing on the immigration issue; how are they deciding who to stop?

How can you trust cops, but not trust the government. There are trustworthy and untrustworthy individuals in both fields.

I actually think so, but I'm not positive.

Yes, I would. I always have some form of ID on me - just in case of an emergency.

Well this is a very tenuous position to take politically. The R's sure aren't making any gains with the liberally inclined.

They are not going to let a "suspicious" person go while they make that reasonable attempt to determine their status. Whether you are in "jail," in "lock-up," chained to a desk in the station, or locked in a paddy wagon, it's really all the same. The cops now have the legal authority to prevent you from being free while they check on your status after pulling you over for speeding.

A regular driver's license is not proof of citizenship. You can't use it to cross the US border any more. It shouldn't be enough in Arizona, although I haven't seen a list anywhere of the documentation they accept. Maybe they will accept it.

I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what these scumbag cops will do. :rolleyes:

They have the legal authority to prevent you from being free while they check your record for warrants and your vehicle reg to see if it's stolen too. What's the difference?

If they are just taking 5 minutes to check some database after pulling you over for speeding, I've got no problem with that. If you are sitting locked up for a day or so while they check it out, I've got a huge problem with that.

Well now, this is an ironic twist, after all of the US State Department's warnings to travelers to Mexico:

I figured you all would be eating this shit up... and I was right.

The law as presented is nothing more than an enforcement law. It allows/requires the cops to enforce the standing federal immigration laws during the course of their normal activity. Some Az cities had previously stated they wouldn't permit their officers actively cooperate with ICE agents. This law now leaves allows each officer in AZ the ability to do so even if their mayor/police chief likes to pander to the illegals. (Thank you Phil Gordon)

There are no roadblocks between cities checking papers. No roving patrols grabbing brown people. No plot to turn AZ white. The Nazi analogy might have been off the mark. Just a little.

If a cop pulls over a speeding van and sees 17 people piled in (this happens pretty frequently here) he now is able to inquire as to citizenship or immigration status. Driver License or ANY OTHER FORM OF ID SUPPORTING LEGAL STATUS within the US? Accept your speeding ticket and go on your merry way. If not it is up to the officer's discretion to investigate further or let them continue on their way. Just like they can choose to issue a warning or a ticket. BTW, all non-citizen legal immigrants are required to carry their green card with them already.

This law isn't designed to get brown people, it is designed to allow enforcement of the current standing federal immigration law regardless of the politics of the local leadership.

Personally I think the law is next to useless just like any immigration policy that doesn't start with locking the damn border down tight, but the concept is some evil racist plan to make life uncomfortable for brown people is just stupid.

Not quite.

It goes beyond being an enforcement law and beyond the federal law.

Under the existing federal law, police can (and do) check for papers ONLY after stopping a person for another violation or alleged crime.

Under the new law, police can stop persons on the street and in cars SOLELY based on suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally. It is a new standard above and beyond the existing federal law.

If you dont see the difference, then feel free to call it pandering.

Added:
As an aside, and one of the concerns of the mayor of Phoenix, is the potential liability exposure to the city. If a cop stops and holds a person who may not be carrying papers and the person is a naturalized citizen...there are grounds for a civil lawsuit and substantial financial damages to the city.

I must have missed that. where did it say that?

I thought it said during the course of LAWFUL CONTACT.

LAWFUL CONTACT now includes the new definition of trespassing.

If you are standing on ANY public or private property and the cops think you are suspicious, they can require you to produce proof of citizenship or legal residency.

I was speaking with an attorney for the organization that represents cities in AZ on another issue today and his greatest concern is the potential liability exposure and the real possibility that cities in AZ will not be able to get liability insurance to cover the far greatest risk of civil suits/awards.

That is one of the myths the opposition is promoting. The law has not been expanded to allow random sweeps. the new law only comes into effect in the course of investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop.

Not according to the attorney for AZ cities.

And the text of the law which has a new definition of trespassing:
This goes beyond investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop (in which cops are already authorized to check for papers).

It is creating a new crime...."trespassing by illegal aliens". Cops could approach anyone on public or private property and hold them if they cannot prove citizenship or legal residency.

After lawful contact is made, a cop is suspicious that a person is illegal. Person says "no, I have papers, just not on me". Person is now considered trespassing and may be held until immigration status is confirmed.

Police can not stop person on the street based solely on immigration status suspicion.

The interpretation I had from the city attorney was that cops can absolutely approach any person on the street under the "trespassing by illegal alien" provision of this law, assuming "reasonable cause" (undefined) and suspicion (undefined) and charge them with trespassing by an alien unless the person can show that he is a citizen or legal resident.

That is now the underlying crime and lawful contact (the cop is investigating possible "trespassing by illegal alien")...no need for a reliance on investigating a separate crime or traffic stop for a separate violation.

They are? Then why aren't the CA cops allowed to check for legal residency, even when they make an arrest?

The federal law allows it.

AZ currently does it. CA has chosen not to do so.....blame Arnold.