AZ SHERIFF SAYS HE WILL NOT ENFORCE NEW LAW

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Arizona has 500 deputies reporting to him and he has stated that neither he nor they will enforce what he has identified as a 'racist' law - Arizona SB 1070. There are multiple problems with his outburst, not the least of which is the position he's potentially putting all of his men in. Perhaps I'm naive but isn't it unlawful for a deputy to follow unlawful orders from his / her superior?

via the NY Daily News:

Come August, when his 500 deputies become responsible for busting illegals, the sheriff's actions will speak louder than any words: His men will look the other way.

"We are not immigration officials," Dupnick vowed Thursday. "We fight crime. The state put us in this position."

He may need to re-think how effective that strategy is going to be. After reading the law, I noticed a very interesting portion that almost anticipated this kind of response from sheriffs not necessarily pre-disposed to enforcing a law they disagree with.

I direct you to Section G. of the Law:

G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

If I'm reading that correctly, it says that any official of any Arizona state government or agency may be sued for not enforcing the law by actively limiting or restricting its implementation. Dupnik is outwardly saying he will defy it. Perhaps he should have kept that little outburst under wraps until after he read the bill. Then again, maybe he did read it and is making what he perceives to be a principled stand.

Either way, he's not going to be doing himself any favors by going to the mat. Why? I direct you to the very next subsection - H, which says that any penalties collected against agencies or officials who are found to have limited or restricted the law's effectiveness will go to the state treasury for the sole purpose of bolstering the law's effectiveness.

H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41‑1724.

So, again, if I understand this correctly, when Dupnik overtly refuses to enforce the law, Joe Six-pack can bring suit against him. When Dupnik loses, whatever penalties are ruled that his department pay will go directly to gaining further intelligence on illegal aliens and gangs. What about Dupnik personally? Would he be liable? Well, based on his going on the record defying the law, quite possibly. The Law states that no official will be required to incur costs or expenses, UNLESS it is determined that said official acted in "bad faith".

Subsection J, boys and girls:

J. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

Maybe it's just me but outwardly expressing defiance of a law by accusing those who passed it as being racist might constitute a "bad faith" claim.

"This law, it's just irresponsible," he said. "It makes them [legislators] look like racists."

Dupnik has tipped his hand unwisely here. He's also obviously emotional about the issue. That said, if he'd have stayed quiet, he may have been able to fool some folks. Now that he's called out his state legislature as a bunch of racists, he's likely caused some unwanted attention and some scrutiny that won't be pleasant.

Frankly, it's about time people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio catch a break and folks like Dupnik start feeling the sting of justified accountability for a change.

h/t to Jawa

BELGIUM BANS THE BURQA

There seems to be a counter-culture shift taking place in western societies. In Europe, a prominent politician named Geert Wilders is garnering significant support as he runs on an anti-Islam platform. Now, in Belgium, the Parliament there has voted overwhelmingly to ban the wearing of burqas in public. As such, Belgium becomes the first country to vote on such a ban. It is unlikely they will be the last. There were already other countries poised to pass a similar law but Belgium may have made that reality a bit more likely.

Via the AFP:

"We're the first country to spring the locks that have made a good number of women slaves, and we hope to be followed by France, Switzerland, Italy, and the Netherlands; countries that think," said liberal deputy Denis Ducarme.

AFP goes on to explain Sarkozy's view in France:

President Nicolas Sarkozy has declared that the burqa is not welcome in France, calling it an affront to French values that denigrates women.

Geert Wilders of The Netherlands is probably the most prominently visible anti-Islamic voice in European politics but he is increasingly becoming less alienated on the matter; his support among voters in his country has increased as well, as evidenced by his surprising victories recently.

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the state of Arizona has passed two laws - one that will enforce federal immigration laws in that state and the other to ban ethnic studies programs in public schools.

More on the new law in Belgium here.



h/t to Jawa

VIDEO: SHAKIRA ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Believing someone actually said this would be tough without video. We have officially gotten to the absurd point in American culture where the term 'celebrity' is synonymous and interchangeable with the word, 'genius'. Small problem. Far too many celebrities are complete dolts.

While appearing on CNN, celebrity, er, I mean genius, Shakira outwardly admits that she's not an expert on the Constitution and then proceeds to give viewers her expert view of it. Usually, when someone admits to not being an expert on something before speaking about it, it's considered to be a disclaimer. Not here.

Watch Shakira shout, "Walk into the fire" in a crowded theater.



h/t to Free Republic