Thread: Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema

Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema
CNN's American Morning with Kiran Chetry and John Roberts (April 21, 2010). Joe Arpaio and Kyrsten Sinema talk about SB1070.


ROBERTS: Latino members of Congress are calling on Arizona's governor to kill a state bill targeting immigration.

The law would make it a crime to be in the country illegally, require police to question anyone if there is a reason to suspect they're in the U.S. illegally. It would prohibit slowing or blocking traffic when searching for day laborers, make it a crime to give ride to someone that you know is an illegal immigrant, and it would fine towns and cities that don't enforce immigration laws.

It already passed Arizona's Senate and House, but governor Pat Brewer has not said if she's going to sign it or not, though there is some indication she may.

Here to talk more about this is Sheriff Joe Arpaio who supports the bill, and Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema, who voted against it. Folks thanks so much for being with us this morning.

Representative Sinema, let's start with you. Some people have said this bill constitutes racial profiling. What do you say?

KYRSTEN SINEMA, ARIZONA STATE HOUSE: Well, one of the real difficult things about this bill is that it forces law enforcement into a catch-22. They have to engage in asking the status of anyone they come into contact with that they have reasonable suspicion to believe may be undocumented.

And if they fail to do so, any Arizona citizen can sue them for not enforcing all federal immigration laws. So they're really placed in a tough bind. They either will get sued for racial profiling by asking folks who are citizens to prove their documentation, or they'll get sued by citizens for not asking every person who appears to be of Latino descent to provide documentation.

ROBERTS: Sheriff Arpaio, this bill doesn't seem too far off from what you have been doing. This is a matter of common practice. What do you think of the bill? SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: It gives us an extra tool, gives law enforcement the initiative to enforce the federal immigration laws and the new state laws. So I'm all for it.

We've arrested and detained 38,000 illegal aliens, and not much problem. I have a few complaints. The U.S. Justice Department a year and a half ago initiated a civil rights investigation against me. Nothing has happened. So we're doing the right thing.

ROBERTS: Now Cardinal Roger Mahoney of the Los Angeles archdiocese, sheriff, said that this bill would encourage, quote, "German-Nazi and Russian-communist techniques." What do you say to that?

ARPAIO: Well, I do know that the demonstrators call me Hitler. They have signs. They've call me every name in the book. That's sad, right here in phoenix. But that's ridiculous. Law enforcement are trained. They're professionals. They know how to enforce the laws. So I'm very comfortable with the new law.

ROBERTS: Representative Sinema, you heard the sheriff saying it gives them another tool to enforce the law. What's your point of view on that? Should law enforcement have every tool legally at their disposal to deal with this issue?

SINEMA: Well, absolutely. Law enforcement should have every tool that they need to do their job.

The problem is that this law doesn't provide those tools. What law enforcement really need are the resources and the tools to crack down on criminal syndicates at our border. We've seen an increase in drug running, gun running, and people running all over the border regions. And there are pieces of legislation that we can pass to actually help that problem.

I just passed a bill that was signed by the governor last week to help crack down on sex trafficking, which is a huge problem in our border. Those are the kinds of tools we need to offer to police officers.

Unfortunately, this bill really puts them in a tough bind and actually ties their hands, makes it more difficult for them to do their job appropriately.

ROBERTS: Sheriff Arpaio, what do you say to that?

ARPAIO: This is garbage. I was a director in Mexico City with the U.S. drug enforcement, spent 14 years at the border. Everybody talks about the border. That's a cop-out, because no one wants to talk about enforcing illegal immigration laws in the interior because of politics, they want amnesty. So it's always secure the border.

But we have criminals right here in Maricopa County, in our jails. We have over 50 people charged with murder that are illegals, violence and everything else. So we have to hit this problem on all levels. The border, yes, but how about inside the United States too? ROBERTS: Representative Sinema, what do you say about that? Sealing the border is one thing, but there are millions of people who are already here who are undocumented immigrants?

SINEMA: Well, I think that's a really important point. And one of the things that, you know, we have offered is that folks like Sheriff Joe should consider enforcing some of the tools and using some of the skills they already have. For instance, here in Maricopa County, there are over 40,000 unserved warrants by violent felons.

ARPAIO: Oh, my gosh.

SINEMA: And we would prefer that Sheriff Joe spend his time issuing those warrants and tracking down those felons rather than finding opportunities to arrest janitors in the city of Mesa.

ARPAIO: Oh, you know, we do crime suppression. We get warrants and drugs and everything else when we're out there.

That's the old cop-out that you've been saying, and your open border people. And I'm not even responsible for the 40,000 warrants. But that's all you can say.

They're calling me a racist and you demonstrating with the demonstrators, Sharpton coming down here. Everybody demonstrated against me because I'm doing my job and I will continue to do my job. And I'll tell you one thing. When this new law is passed, I will continue to enforce that law also.

ROBERTS: Well, Sheriff Arpaio let me ask you this question, because many people have raised this, that it now becomes law that if you are a documented immigrant you need to carry that documentation with you or even, you know, if you're a citizen, you've got to have proof that you're a legal resident of this country.

If you come across someone who you suspect may be illegal simply because maybe they're Hispanic and they don't have documentation but they are either a legal immigrant or they're an American citizen, what do you do with them?

ARPAIO: Well, what we've been doing with them. We either arrest them pursuant to our law enforcement on other types of crimes or we have trained -- I did have 100 deputies trained by Homeland Security. Of course they took away that authority. But I have 900 deputies trained.

So we know how to enforce. We know the protocol. We know the criteria when we come across people that may be here illegally in the country.

ROBERTS: But can you say all law enforcement will be that adept at enforcing and applying this law?

ARPAIO: Well, they're trained all the time on all types of laws. I hope they will be trained. I hope there are no incidents from higher-ups to keep them from enforcing the new law. ROBERTS: And Representative Sinema, obviously it looks like there will be legal challenges against this bill. Some members of Congress insist federal law trumps state law, so that may be one of the first challenges. Do you expect this law if the governor signs it into law, do you expect that it will survive the legal challenges?

SINEMA: Well, I anticipate that this law will not survive the legal challenges. I'm also a constitutional attorney, and there are a number of constitutional flaws and problems with this law, one of which you just mentioned, which is the issue of requiring documentation by individuals who may or may not have status in this country.

There are a number of people who have legal status in this country who have no documentation, are not offered any by the government to prove that. An example would be the wife of a work visa holder. She's allowed to be here in this country, but she has no paper to prove that. And just two weeks ago in the city of Mesa, a tourist from Mexico was detained for two hours when officers were unable to recognize his tourist visa for the legal document that it was. And unfortunately, that represents an unconstitutional loss of liberty for that individual.

So I think we'll see significant challenges, and I do not anticipate that this law will survive those challenges.

ROBERTS: All right, Representative Sinema and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, thanks for joining us this morning.

SINEMA: My pleasure.
ARPAIO: Thank you.
ROBERTS: Good discussion, appreciate it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... tm.03.html

Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/arpaionews# ... LAD6R2XtiU

Gotta love Sheriff Joe

I adore Sheriff Joe. And if Kyrsten is a constitutional law attorney, then no wonder our country has gone to Constitutional Hell in a Handbasket. She couldn't even recite the provisions of the law correctly.

She denounces this bill because she claims it is unconstitutional for an alien to be required to carry their papers with them. What a joke! U.S. Citizens are required to carry proof of identity at all times, proof of registration and insurance when they are driving. Yet an illegal alien shouldn't have to follow the same rules?

If she was a Constitutional Lawyer as she claims, then she would know that this new Arizona law is almost identical to numerous Federal statutes which are already on the books, including 8 USC 1304(e), and 8 USC 1324.

Furthermore, she would also know that almost all of the provisions within this law are already crimes under Federal law. For example, it is already a crime to hire illegals. Transporting illegals is also a crime already on the books. I have highlighted the pertinent parts in red:

Sec. 264. [8 U.S.C. 1304]

(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/ ... -8289.html

1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.

Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).

Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.

Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_ ... m01907.htm

Originally Posted by ICEstorm

She denounces this bill because she claims it is unconstitutional for an alien to be required to carry their papers with them. What a joke! U.S. Citizens are required to carry proof of identity at all times, proof of registration and insurance when they are driving. Yet an illegal alien shouldn't have to follow the same rules?

If she was a Constitutional Lawyer as she claims, then she would know that this new Arizona law is almost identical to numerous Federal statutes which are already on the books, including 8 USC 1304(e), and 8 USC 1324.

Furthermore, she would also know that almost all of the provisions within this law are already crimes under Federal law. For example, it is already a crime to hire illegals. Transporting illegals is also a crime already on the books. I have highlighted the pertinent parts in red:

Sec. 264. [8 U.S.C. 1304]

(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/ ... -8289.html

1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.

Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).

Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.

Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_ ... m01907.htm

Exactly! And don't forget this important section of 1324a:

4. c.

(c) Authority to arrest

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc ... -000-.html

It's already constitutional federal the law that state and local police officers can arrest illegal aliens. Someone should revoke her constitutional law degree for lying about "the law" and the US Constitution. Can we do that?

Just kidding, but seriously, there are too many "lawyers" walking around lying about our country, our people, our laws and our Constitution. If I know about this 1324a ... 4(c), then she should know about it before she opens her pie-hole on national television. And every member of Congress should know about it, including Luis. So I hope a reporter from Fox or CNN or MSNBC or someone will bring this to light and inform the people of the United States.

So am I to understand that you feel that the law is constitutional and therefore no rights are being violated???

I am not a lawyer or anything, but I would like to engage in an intellectual conversation over this subject.

Do you not feel that this will encourage racial profiling?

I mean, what do the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" really mean? And how will they be applied?

Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.

Looking forward to your responses.

NOT possessing a valid US drivers license would be reasonable suspicion enough to ask for immigration status.

Lawful contact is any time an you come in contact with a police officer and he asks you for your ID. I don't have a problem showing my ID, do you? The only ones who have a problem are people who have something to hide.

Teenagers are routinely stopped and questioned when they are seen walking late at night. If they have no ID, a parent is called to bring that ID and to pick up the teen. Happened to my daughter last night. Did I have a problem with that? No, I didn't. She had her license, is of age and was sent on her merry way. How were her rights violated?

What a total shame that our government and illegal lovers cheapen the value of United States Citizenship. Our national citizenship has been bought and paid for with the blood of millions of American Citizens for over 230 years. Yet the illegal lovers and our Congress (but then I repeat myself) feel United States Citizenship is worth less than driving privileges.

Being a citizen of the United States of America is an honor, a privilege (like driving) and a responsibility of utmost loyalty. I will gladly let any official in any nation check my identify and proudly show I am a United States Citizen. That will not change until the day the Mexican flag flies over Aztlan...

Pagliacci asked:

So am I to understand that you feel that the law is constitutional and therefore no rights are being violated???

Correct...the law mirrors existing federal law which has been held to be constitutionally valid. Why would this law not be constitutional?

Do you not feel that this will encourage racial profiling?

No I do not...this law has nothing to do with race, as last time I checked, being illegal is not a race. Your question suggests illegal invaders are of a particular race or appearance. Is this true?

I mean, what do the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" really mean? And how will they be applied?

It means the same thing as it would regarding any law that police officers are called upon to enforce. 1070 does not give police the authority to make contact with someone simply because they would like to question their immigration status.

For example, if the posted speed limit is 45 and a police officer observes you doing 55, he has probable cause to pull you over and discuss this violation with you. That would be called a lawful contact.

If during the course of his investigation, he determines (based upon probable cause) the subject might be in this country illegally, he now has the authority to arrest based upon his probable cause.

Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.

How is asking someone for their identification during the course of an investigation, (based upon probable cause) going to violate someone's rights under the 14th Amendment? That argument could be suggested regarding any law I suppose. It will not go very far.

If you want to discuss violations of the 14th Amendment, perhaps we should start with how it is the offspring of those who entered this country in violation of our immigration laws could be granted US citizenship when their parents are still under the jursidiction of another (and their allegiance) country.

This is especially true since the framers included specific language within the 14th Amendment which excluded US citizenship to the offspring born to foreign diplomats, who would have been in this country legally at the time of said birth.

So how is it that the offspring of foreign diplomats are denied US citizenship, but the offspring of those who entered this country in violation of our immigration laws, (and also still have loyalty to their motherland) could be granted US citizenship with no questions asked?

The same rational for denying the offpsring of foreign diplomants US citizenship, is also present with those who entered this country in violation of our immigration laws.

What's different?

Perhaps this would be a more apt place to start if we are going to discuss violations of the 14th Amendment.

Kyrsten Sinema is an idiot, she was on Washington Journel yesterday....the people of AZ need to throw this big mouth nut case out of office.

And I can not tell you how bad I wanted to wipe that continuing smurk off her face, she made me sick!