“Lawful contact” does not apply solely to law enforcement but to any “agency” of “the state, or a county, city, town or other political subdivision,” as enumerated in the law. If the drafters had wanted the law to apply only when a police officer had already come into contact with an individual because of a separate and distinct civil or criminal violation, they could have said so. If that had been their intent, they would have had no reason to include a provision for lawful contact by officials of all agencies of the state, county, local, and other political subdivisions.
The list is all-inclusive because the law envisions officials from all public agencies — schools, hospitals, social services, etc. — having the right to demand proof of legal residence any time the official has “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an illegal immigrant.Except, of course, it does not--
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where.." In other words, a law enforcement official or law enforcement agency. Not the freaking health inspector, or the forestry tree counter. Duh. Hey, Linda, ever read a criminal statute before...???
Not content, Linda beclowns herself further still--
But even in the law enforcement context, “lawful contact” gives wide berth to police officers to approach individuals on the street, the so-called Terry standard. And in this instance, the law specifically permits that contact to occur solely on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an illegal immigrant. The drafters could have insisted on a higher standard, such as “probable cause,” but chose the lower threshold to cast a wider net.Um, Linda, no. It. Does. Not. The law says when a LEO makes a LEGAL contact, OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE under state law, they can move to square two. They can't initiate a LAWFUL CONTACT on illegal immigrants status.
If conservatives really want to stop illegal immigration, we’re going to have to figure out a way either to shrink our economy on a permanent basis so that we don’t need manual laborers and service workers — something I’m convinced groups like FAIR and Numbers USA would have no trouble accepting in return for a smaller U.S. population — or we’re going to have to come up with a reasonable, market-based immigration system to allow more people to come here legally to work.This level of dumb seems to betray an underlying hypersensitivity working in Ms. Chavez. A friend should stop her, before she writes again...