When seat belts use became mandatory a debate ensued regarding enforcement and limiting police powers. Would the police pull you over for “suspicion of not wearing a seat belt?” The debate resolved in a reasonably common sense resolution; if you were detained for some other valid reason and caught not wearing a seat belt you could be cited for it. This approach represents long standing precedent for police forces all over the nation.
It is clear from the Arizona Immigration enforcement bill that the same standard would be applied with additional safeguards. The points of contention regarding “reasonable suspicion” already bear mountains of case law. “Lawful contact” refers to the precedent noted above and also bears significant case law. The Police know exactly what to do as well as when and when not to do it.
The bill excludes race and ethnicity as the exclusive basis for a police officers judgment. Assuming long experience with secondary contact issues for Police forces and standing precedent in a number of states on other issues. Where exactly is the justification for media supported cries of right wing, nut job, neocon, racist, Nazi, fascist, hard hearted SOB.
Is there a chance for a civil rights issue? You bet; in this day and age it’s nearly guaranteed. If we can’t get a civil rights issue, we’ll make one up. Many, specifically Mr. Horowitz, have documented any number of set up “crimes” by leftist organizations. It’s the perfect Saul Alinsky set up. Freeze the issue, demonize the opponents, create discontent and cry for “justice”.
It is a question of justice; it is a question of broader justice. If justice for an illegal minority inflicts pain and suffering on the majority (In Arizona 70+% favor the bill) have we achieved justice by any reasonable definition? Marginalizing 70% of a state’s population with sweeping statements of opposition does not sound like a mainstream kind of thing to do?
We commence from a point of illegality, the “immigrant rights” argument must be predicated on the acceptance of illegality as a non applicable standard. Really?
It’s not really illegal because there’s a good reason? That never worked for me; “hold on officer just let me leaf through my rapid excuse checklist, I’m sure there’s something in here that will nullify my guilt”. The issue is, by common sense, framed by rampant illegality and the tenuous acceptance of that illegality by the U.S. Government. No really, really big crime operation can operate without the tacit approval of the authorities by whatever means; that is the case here over the course of two maybe three administrations.
We will be asked to accept the idea that illegal is a flexible definition, dependant on circumstances. To accept the idea that fundamental law and its very foundational assumptions, must change to observe current circumstances no matter the illegality involved in creating the circumstance in the first case. It’s legal relativism at its most basic point of context and should be viewed for the logical disconnect it is.