Present Your Papers! Sir, Ma'am

[Danno]

Hola again! Although I must confess to not having read the legislation, I have heard law professors from ASU on our local PBS station talk about the law and actually read passages from it. I have also heard the individual who will be responsible for training police officers on the new law.

My understanding of the law is this: The officer must have a legally reasonable suspicion of a person's involvement in a crime in order to stop the person (just as is always the case in order to avoid even the appearance of profiling). At that point, the officer must determine from a list of criteria whether that person is likely to be an alien. The criteria would include such things as a license plate from, say Sonora and the individual's ability to speak English. Clothing that would be considered "Mexican" would also be an indicator, but would never be enough on its own. Color of skin must not play any part in the stopping or questioning of the individual. If the person is believed to have been involved in a crime AND gives evidence of being a foreigner, such as explained above, the officer may then ask the individual whether the individual is an American citizen. If the individual says "Yes," the officer may ask where he was born. If the individual says, for example, "Chicago," the questioning must stop. If the individual admits to not being from this country, however, the officer may require that he produce his papers -- which every alien is to carry on his/her person at all times anyway.

Governor Brewer was adamant about not profiling. And, if I'm not mistaken, profiling is a civil rights violation of federal law. Am I wrong? My guess is that any American citizen who is the victim of profiling will likely be very rich one day at the taxpayers' expense -- which is as it should be.

The news today reported that Sharpton will be in town tomorrow. He will take part in a prayer vigil, and then he will be in a march. They did not report that he has any plans to speak with the Governor. Perhaps he doesn't really care what this law is all about.

Something struck me today, and I hate to think that it may well be the truth: The people who suffer most because of the flood of illegal illiterate immigrants are poor brown, black and white folks ... and this may be an intentional effort on the part of the powers-that-be to keep the poor down. After all, who would be working those jobs in the absence of frightened, subservient immigrants? Poor Americans would be working those jobs, and they would at least have an opportunity to get ahead. As long as even the lowest jobs go to these immigrants, however, poor Americans don't have a chance.

Regarding my speaking for the "Catholics," I need to make it clear that I speak only for myself. However, my Catholic jurisdiction is not "under the Pope." We are NOT Roman Catholics. My former jurisdiction, the Independent Catholic Church of the West, was just completely absorbed by the United Catholic Church. We are, as a rule, former Roman Catholics who abhor the Roman Catholic Church's practices, politics, exclusion of gays, excommunication of those who divorce and remarry, and treatment of women. People in our church may continue their pious practices (such as praying the rosary and veneration, but not worship, of saints); however, we do not emphasize those practices. Our emphasis is on the Gospels, the reported teachings of Jesus himself. Many of our clergy were actually ordained in the Roman Catholic Church -- but we've also ordained many women to the priesthood, and the presiding bishop of the United Catholic Church is a woman. We don't own buildings; we simply rent from other churches. As far as I know, none of our pastors have ever been paid; we all work normal jobs. Some of our pastors, however, work as chaplains in police departments, colleges, hospitals and hospices -- and they, of course, are paid by whatever entity employs them.

In my own background is a few years of religious formation in a Roman Catholic religious order of teaching brothers ("male nuns," as I explain it to people). This religious formation, along with additional courses in my new church, led to my ordination as a priest.

Thanks for asking!

I offer this brief opinion. Reasonable suspicion is nothing new. In order to detain and question a person walking down the street a policeman needs to establish a reasonable suspicion that the person is violating the law in some way. It is a law that is designed to keep us from having a "police state". Reasonable suspicion may work in a society which is not corrupt but we are a corrupt society. Reasonable suspicion is inherently vague. The courts have tried to define "reasonable suspicion" but it remains one of the most abused provisions of law that undermine civil rights. It is very easy to invent "reasonable suspicion" out of nothing. I know, it is done all the time. Any opportunity for abuse will be taken... our corrupt society guarantees it.

When our civil right are at stake we all need to realize the importance in protecting those rights most fervently when they are being taken from those we disagree with. If everyone protected only the rights of those we agree with there soon would be no rights for anyone. The Pastor Niemuller statement from post WWII illustrates that point very well.