Arizona racial profiling law written by legislator with ties to neo-Nazis

This weekend I wrote about the new immigration bill signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, and at the time I noted 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. At the time I wondered what exactly – besides an individual’s skin color – would constitute reasonable suspicion in the minds of law enforcement that a person is not present in the United States legally. I have yet to hear or read any explanation of how law enforcement in Arizona will enforce this new law without resorting to racial profiling, and while supporters of the bill have insisted it won’t resort in racial profiling, it’s worth noting the bill was authored by Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, who has ties to J.T. Ready, an individual with strong ties to the neo-Nazi movement. In fact, here’s Pearce with Ready at an anti-immigrant rally in June of 2009:

And here’s J.T. Ready (second from right) at a neo-Nazi rally in Omaha earlier this month.

The fact that Russell Pearce openly associates with neo-Nazi racists speaks volumes about the man, and it leaves me doubting the intentions behind the illegal immigration legislation he authored. Gov. Jan Brewer can say what she wants to deny that the intent of the legislation is to give law enforcement a free pass to engage in racial profiling, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I’m betting it’s a duck.


Related Articles

54 thoughts on “Arizona racial profiling law written by legislator with ties to neo-Nazis

    1. I’m going to use the argument liberals so often used against conservatives on health care: Maybe this legislation isn’t perfect, but at least it is doing something, and if you don’t like it, present a plan of your own.

      I can’t figure out why liberals don’t care about ILLEGAL immigration?!

      1. Forgot-

        I too am concerned about ILLEGAL immigration, but what papers will you show to prove you are a citizen or here legally if stopped.

        Like most citizens here in the US we do not have documents proving we are legal other than a birth cert….which you see how far that got Obama. Most states provide drivers’ licenses for people who live in the state…citizenship is not required.

        This is a federal issue and both dems & repubs should be taking a long hard serious look at truly effective ways of preventing illegal aliens from entering the US without making us a fascist state.

        1. You are right, when liberals want to allow illegals to have drivers’ licenses, that makes having authentic ID more difficult. Good thing that idea failed in Wisconsin. There is an easy way to fix the problem you describe: don’t give drivers’ licenses out to illegal immigrants!!!

      2. forgot, I’m wondering if you can explain to me how this law will be enforced without law enforcement engaging in racial profiling, which the last time I checked is illegal. Other than skin color, what exactly makes someone look like an illegal immigrant?

  1. Forgot-

    I was in a car accident several years back. I was rear-ended. The gentleman driving had a driver’s license, but was undocumented – he had been living in the State for several years. The only way my insurance was able to track him down for payment was because he drove legally. This is only one example of the reasons drivers’ licenses are given to residents without proof of citizenship.

    Again, what papers would you show to prove you are a citizen?

    1. But that’s just the point! The gentleman who rear-ended you shouldn’t be granted priviledges like driving — he shouldn’t even be in this country!

      Not sure what state you were in when that happened, but in WI you need to provide a birth certifcate, Social Security number, and other forms of valid ID and citizenship to get a drivers license. So as far as WI is concerned, a license is a sufficent document to show to prove citizenship. As part of the REAL ID Act I think other states have to do something similiar, but may differntiate between a citizen license and a different “undocumented” license.

      But I still have a real problem with handing out a valid and official document ID by the government to someone who is here ILLEGALLY. You really seem to be missing that point of it. When the first thing illegal immigrants do here is break the law and it is tolerated, encouraged and even applauded by some, why would they then respect the rest of our laws?

      1. Forgot-

        I have not missed the point. The point being, this is a federal issue. NOT a state’s issue. AZ does not have the right to determine what type of id must be shown to prove citizenship.

        It will be just a matter of time that a native-born citizen will not be able to produce proper id and AZ will end up with a huge mess on its hands.

        Once again, the point is … this is a federal issue.

        1. I can only assume then that you support strong measures taken against illegal immigration at the federal level.

          1. Forgot-

            As I have state before…..

            This is a federal issue and both dems & repubs should be taking a long hard serious look at truly effective ways of preventing illegal aliens from entering the US without making us a fascist state.

            1. When the federal polticians ignore the problem, whether it be for polticial advantage or so that companies can take advantage of cheap labor, what do you expect a state to do? When you can’t ask someone if they are legal even when they are accessing state programs paid for by tax dollars, it gets a bit ridiculous.

              So you are ok with reform as long as the feds are the ones deciding and they will only pass an unfunded mandate on the states. I mean do you think they are going to hire a ton of INS workers to do it? That doesn’t work now.

              And when liberal politicians want to grant illegals more rights and benefits (in-state tuition, remember that one?), I have a hard time believing they have any credibility to seriously deal with this issue.

              1. Well…I guess we will see, won’t we?

                Enjoy your evening Forgot…you have made my day a little less boring.

      2. forgot, do you honestly believe that individuals who are here illegally won’t drive simply because the state they live in won’t give them a driver’s license?

        I may not like that someone’s here illegally, but I’d rather they have a driver’s license (and thus are a little easier to keep tabs on) than not.

        1. If the government would do its job and not allow illegal aliens in or allow them to stay, you wouldn’t have to worry about them driving illegally.

          Government providing them a license legitimizes their stay. If government has the ability to keep tabs on them, that same government has the ability to send them home.

        2. I think it’s dubious that a drivers license makes them easier to keep tabs on. But regardless, there is no will, absolutely no stomach to do anything about it. The feds are willfully putting their heads in the sand which effectively forces the states to do it as well. A lot of what these measures do is actually acknowledge and follow the existing laws rather than ignore them.

          Despite the fact that I don’t like parts of what AZ is doing, I have a great deal of sympathy towards them and that for them. Just about all states are struggling financially and unlike the fed, most can’t run a deficit (at least without creative accounting) nor can they print money. The added burden of illegals especially on the scale AZ is facing is just too much. My brother, who is fairly liberal, lived & taught in AZ for awhile (he just moved back to WI 2 years ago). Most of his time was teaching at a high school literally 10 minutes from the border. Every class he taught was English language first and whatever History or Social Studies he could get in second.

          Tangent warning…Perhaps the most interesting thing to me – I’m generally of the libertarian bent on drugs, especially pot. Not for me, but it just doesn’t seem to be a big problem to me. On the other hand, after his time out there, he’s very anti-drugs. The destruction to the individuals, but even more so, the collateral damage and most notably, murders – even with smuggling pot – well, suffice to say he’s glad to be back in Wisconsin.

  2. The connection in those pics above is ridiculous.

    Name one successful politician who doesn’t glad-hand for photo ops without doing a background check — AND, in any case, isn’t J.T. Ready a constituent?

    What BS!

    1. The Clintons were photographed on numerous occasions meeting with drug ring leader Jorge Cabrera at fundraiser events. Other Clinton donations came from a convicted illegal arms dealer, Chinese government agents, and many other drug smugglers. Photographs reconfirm this. Another photo taken at a DNC fundraiser shows Bill and Hillary posing with Ng Lap Seng, Macau Crime Lord who controled Prostitution in that region. His Fortuna Hotel is actually a high class bordello where young girls are available for a price. Ng, through his American contact Charlie Trie, donated close to a million dollars to the Democrats.

      This leaves me doubting the intentions behind legislation the Clintons advanced and signed.

  3. Have any of you libs ever been pulled over by a cop? Have you not been asked to provide your license, registration and insurance papers? Why should illegal criminals, those who are in this country ILLEGALLY be giving a free ride? What makes them so special that they also do not need to provide the same proof all Americans now are required to provide.

    1. Notalib, the new law in Arizona isn’t about providing a license, registration, and proof of insurance when being pulled over by law enforcement; it requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship (birth certificate, etc.), and it also gives law enforcement the ability to pull folks over based on nothing more than skin color.

      That’s what the new law is about.

  4. Again you are wrong, The Arizona law also requires residents to carry ID or immigration registration documents at all times something we all do now, it does not say anything about showing a birth certificate. Why are you libs embellishing the facts once again, oh never mind we know why you do it.

    1. And how exactly will law enforcement determine who they suspect of being illegal immigrants? What criteria will law enforcement officers use, besides skin color?

      As for my comment about a birth certificate, I’ll just note that possession of a driver’s license doesn’t ensure an individual is a citizen (though perhaps that’s different in Arizona), so logic would dictate an individual would need to be in possession of a birth certificate or immigration papers in order to verify their immigration status.

  5. You should post a clip from Larry King last night. He had Al Sharpton and Sheriff Arpaio on…and Sharpton really schooled Arpaio at the end when Arpaio stated 75% of the people he serves supports the new law. I think it was the first time I was actually impressed with Al Sharpton.

  6. Hey Zach, notice how each and every person in favor of this law have avoided defining what an illegal immigrant looks like?

    How convenient. Even the governor who signed it doesn’t know what an illegal immigrant looks like.

    1. This law is not the right way to go…but it’s hard to argue we don’t need some kind of immigration reform. I never thought I’d hear myself say this…but we just need to get the people who are here illegally legalized. Let them live their American dream in peace. And in the mean time…we need to do something about securing the borders…which Bush was an EPIC FAIL on securing.

      1. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that we don’t need some sort of immigration reform, but the law enacted in Arizona really isn’t reform – it’s just a knee-jerk reaction to the issue.

        1. I’m not arguing with you on that point…that is for sure. It’s a knee-jerk reaction just like the Patriot Act was when it was signed into law.

  7. The only ones describing what an illegal looks like are those against the law, why is that? I know I have NEVER said it is only “brown people” who are illegals that is only the libs who are obsessed with race, again.

    1. Notalib, who is this law targeted at?

      I ask because you mentioned that we’re obsessed with race, but I’m pretty sure this law wasn’t implemented to combat the influx of illegal Canadian immigrants into Arizona.

    2. Oh, I didn’t pull the race card. You just did. What “reasonable suspicion” is there that someone is an illegal immigrant?

  8. I seem to recall a situation parallel to the Pearce/Ready relationship, how about Obama/Ayers?
    To quote you “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I’m betting it’s a duck.”
    You are nothing but a hypocrite.

  9. Well since Canada does not border Arizona it makes it difficult but if Canadians were coming across the Arizona border then this law would also include them. Unlike the left who want to READ into the bill I am able to comprehend what it says and no where in the bill does it say ‘brown people’ like the left infers. Now unless you are admitting the the majority of the illegals in this country are from the southern regions then I guess we have reached an agreement.

    1. Please define what reasonable suspicion would be needed to identify a illegal immigrant.

      And I believe we are “implying”, not “inferring”.

    2. Notalib-

      What you are missing is that there are many types of illegal immigrants. Most common in the US are those who entered legally with a visa (got other legal documents; i.e. drivers license, ss card, etc.) and then let their visa expire.

      How do you determine who to ask for documents? Everyone on the street? I suspect the AZ law enforcement are not going to do that, but will be forced to use some type of profiling to limit the scope.

  10. I didn’t realize Ayers was in favor of getting rid of the Jewish people or a similar idea. Attempt at hypocrisy call out FAIL!!1!1

  11. Wow. What the heck is wrong with you Notalib? Just say it already. The illegal immigrants this new law targets are Mexican people, but the problem is not all the people who are in this country and look Mexican are illegal immigrants. What’s the big deal about saying it the way it is?? Was what I said politically incorrect?

    Anyways…now that reminds me of something else which is troublesome with this law. Who in the heck trust the police officers to enforce this law without violating people’s civil rights? I sure don’t. I can’t after reading a comment online once from a cop that said something like “aren’t all Mexicans illegal”…so yeah, I don’t really trust their judgement when it comes to the enforcement end.

      1. Please define what reasonable suspicion would be needed to identify a illegal immigrant.

  12. Anon are you as clueless as your post makes you sound? The point is, while you libs want to make this about race there is no mention anywhere in the law “brown skin” like you libs are adding. GROW UP.

    On another note,

    Great NEWS! This is going to explode and make the feds do the job they are suppose to PROTECT OUR BORDERS.

    A Republican Texas lawmaker plans to introduce a tough immigration measure similar to the new law in Arizona,

    1. Notalib-

      Why did you not address the point I made at an earilier post showing your cluelessness?

      “What you are missing is that there are many types of illegal immigrants. Most common in the US are those who entered legally with a visa (got other legal documents; i.e. drivers license, ss card, etc.) and then let their visa expire.

      “How do you determine who to ask for documents? Everyone on the street? I suspect the AZ law enforcement are not going to do that, but will be forced to use some type of profiling to limit the scope.”

      The law is not about skin, but about how are law enforcement going to determine who to ask or as liberalssavetheworld keeps asking you & Forgot (or anyone else) to define “What is reasonable suspisions”?

    2. As for the feds doing their job….why don’t you ask Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) why when the Senate talked about moving up the Immigration legislation, he walked off saying he won’t work on any other legislation with the Dems?

      Reason is the Immigration climate will not help Republicans and this statebased legislation from AZ & TX will only energize the Hispanic communities to support the Dems prior the 2010 elections.

      So bring it on TX!

      1. Sort of like how the Democrats won’t work with Republicans on Health care reform, banking reform…

        Mr. Uniter has the most divided, most partisan and most caustic Congress in a long time. Health care had a ton of 80/20 or even 90/10 issues. Much about the banking reform needed could be agreed upon by 95% of them. But they don’t want that, it’s all about the gotcha’ and nailing the other guys. Probably has something to do with the fact that our country’s leader set the bar for bipartisanship with his own record of never crossing the isle. Since that’s the example for bipartisanship now, not tough understand why we’ve got what we’ve got.

        1. “Sort of like how the Democrats won’t work with Republicans on Health care reform, banking reform…”

          I’d say it is the other way around.

          1. I say its both way neither side care to work together and thats why they have America all fucked up. Its one more reason to destroy the two party system and install term limits.

  13. The job the the feds are suppose to be doing is not trying to find a way to make 20,000,000 illegals citizens but to stop the flow of these criminals from coming across the borders. The best solution bring the troops home from Japan, Germany, Irag, Afghanistan and every other foreign base and put them on our borders north and south and start enforcing the laws of this land, but the vast majority of politicians in this country left and right are cowards and refuse to uphold the Constitution to serve and protect the United States of America.

  14. BTW way reasonable suspicions start at the day labor sites that have large groups of men standing around every day. Walk up and ask the simple question may I please see your id if the provide them great if not arrest, charge and remove.

    1. Except you don’t have to show them your id. You only have to supply your name when asked. You only have to show your id when stopped for a terry stop.

  15. “Ok so they don’t have to show ID so whats the problem” So how would there be reasonable suspicion? If you are not driving, which you need to have a drivers license for, and are just walking down the street doing nothing illegal, how would a police officer be able to tell you were an illegal immigrant?

  16. And there you go you are projecting they are going to stop people walking down the street for no reason. Once again typical leftwing fear mongering.

    1. Now you are just being antagonistic…..if they don’t have to provide an id while on the street/walking/@the day labor sites…..then how do you prove legal status?

      This is just a poorly written law that is meant to put fear into an entire community of people and ensure that that community knows its place.

      Law enforcement did not ask for this law because they have the federal laws that they can hold and arrest suspected illegal aliens. Several LEOs are now stating they will not enforce the law because it is unconstitutional and not needed for effective law enforcement.

      The law does not go into effect until 90 days after the AZ legislative session closes and there will be many suits filed. Essentially this whole process will end up being a waste of AZ time and money.

  17. No I said walking down the street but if they are at a day labor site they better be able to prove they are here legally, they have no right to be working in this country if they are here illegally.

Comments are closed.