Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Because this law encourages it in the law itself. That's pretty unique, don't you think?

Not to me....every law has this characteristic to it. Whether it's stated or not doesn't matter much does it?

 

[The Commish]

[

Not sure a police officer would take direction from me over his superior though

In this case, when the police department is sued for not being aggressive enough by "you" and losing won't the end result be following your direction rather than the one they thought was best?

Let's say I sue....it's because I thought they didn't do their job and something bad happened. I will either be validated or told I am a moron by a judge and jury of my peers. It's not just me. What I probably have issue with the most is that it's going to take a lot of time and court cases for AZ police officers to get a good idea of what is too much, too little etc.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So? I am not challenging your professional judgment, just trying to understand why this gets tossed out. Contrary to videoguys assertion it has not been answered at least in a way to me. Christo did clear up, sort of, that the police officer himself has protections in this case, but that doesn't protect the police department, etc. To be clear I'm assuming that the resident observed that the officer did not, in his eyes pursue on multiple occasions to "THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW" an action against someone that was of questionable status for whatever reason you like where whatever legal requirements for such actions were met. To fill in the blanks there was no other police investigation that such action would have thwarted, and the action was certainly feasible - just not done. Why is this tossed out?

It might not be. Tim's argument is the cop on the street getting sued. No one is arguing that the department itself is immune - it isn't. If there is a program or policy implemented or practice that limits then there could be agency liability. There are a ton of other reasons and laws that have the same type of langauge thorughout the country. No police department is immune from litigation.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

[

Not sure a police officer would take direction from me over his superior though

In this case, when the police department is sued for not being aggressive enough by "you" and losing won't the end result be following your direction rather than the one they thought was best?

Let's say I sue....it's because I thought they didn't do their job and something bad happened. I will either be validated or told I am a moron by a judge and jury of my peers. It's not just me. What I probably have issue with the most is that it's going to take a lot of time and court cases for AZ police officers to get a good idea of what is too much, too little etc.

Nothing bad had to happen other that they did too little in your mind as a matter of policy and/or practice that you perceive to exist. Whether you win or lose will have some bearing on shaping that policy and practice, but your larger point about taking the time to deal with these cases will also shape policy and/or practice - win or lose. So that is my point to my initial reply to you. The policies and practices are not being formulate by the law enforcement professionals but by the suing residents, the judges, and juries. And those policies and practices are not about how to do best perform their entire job but how much to pursue whether or not someone is properly documented.

 

[timschochet]

timmy, a political party isn't committing suicide when it acts in what the majority of the voting base considers to be their best interest. The majority of this country - most especially those states on the border - have shown a clear and distinct desire to have illegal immigration controlled and cleaned up.

Did you happen to miss the reaction of the country on the McCain-Kennedy Act that Bush said he would "see them at the signing"? The bi-partisan pro-illegal end run went down in flames when Congress read their constituents' responses to it.

The rest of the country as a majority doesn't think like you do, and you aren't mainstream.

Let me explain to you why you're wrong. It has to do with political pluralism. You are absolutely right that the majority of Americans doesn't agree with me on the issue of illegal immigration. Among Republicans, probably up to 70% of voters are in favor of tighter restrictions and opposed to amnesty. Among Democrats, the number is lower, but still probably 40-45%. And independents nearly match Republicans with regard to this issue, giving a clear majority in favor of tighter restrictions and against amnesty.

However, most Americans are not one-issue voters. Specifically, those voters who are Democrat are not going to vote Republican based on this issue. But what IS going to happen is that Latinos are going to vote in much larger numbers, and they're all going to vote for Democrats. So despite the fact that, in this issue, Republicans may represent the majority of Americans, they're going to lose elections, because they don't represent the pluralistic majority. That's what I mean when I wrote that they are committing political suicide. Hope that makes sense.

 

[videoguy505]

Changes being made to AZ law?

PHOENIX -- Arizona lawmakers have approved several changes to the recently passed sweeping law targeting illegal immigration.

If Gov. Jan Brewer supports the changes, they will go into effect at the same time as the new law, 90 days from now.

The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as weed-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.

Pearce defended that provision, saying there shouldn't be a restraint on when police act on a reasonable suspicion that somebody is in the country illegally. "It is a lawful contact," Pearce said.

The follow-on legislation approved Thursday also would change the law to specify that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law.

Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.

Brewer likely will sign the follow-on bill, said the spokesman, Paul Senseman.

Pearce said that change doesn't require a formal arrest before questioning but helps make it clear that racial profiling is not allowed.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Why not? I realize there is section J to protect the officer, but what in this language keeps a resident from suing an officer for "looking the other way" as a matter of "practice"?

36 G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION

37 IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A

38 COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS

39 OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT

40 OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL

41 LAW.

Anyone can file any suit anywhere. There a difference between being able to file a complaint and having an actual justicible claim that would survive a motion to dismiss or summary judgment

So? I am not challenging your professional judgment, just trying to understand why this gets tossed out. Contrary to videoguys assertion it has not been answered at least in a way to me. Christo did clear up, sort of, that the police officer himself has protections in this case, but that doesn't protect the police department, etc. To be clear I'm assuming that the resident observed that the officer did not, in his eyes pursue on multiple occasions to "THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW" an action against someone that was of questionable status for whatever reason you like where whatever legal requirements for such actions were met. To fill in the blanks there was no other police investigation that such action would have thwarted, and the action was certainly feasible - just not done. Why is this tossed out?

It gets thrown out bc one cop deciding to not enforce the law in a particular instance, or even several instances, is not the department adopting or implementing a policy or practice of non-enforcement.

If it helps you - Add the fact that the officer was neither investigated nor reprimanded in any way for the multiple instances of not enforcing the law to the resident's satisfaction.

If a litigant can prove that there was an internal policy of looking the other way and can support that accusation with enough facts to get a liability verdict, then so be it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Neither of these replies answer anything. Sorry.

Yes, they do. A suit can be filed for a myriad of reasons. However all suits are subject to potential motions to dismiss prior to the formal answer being filed. Or, if they survive the first hurdle, subject to a motion for summary judgment if no facts support the claim. That's the answer. Suits are routinely thrown out of court for lack of evidence in support.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So? I am not challenging your professional judgment, just trying to understand why this gets tossed out. Contrary to videoguys assertion it has not been answered at least in a way to me. Christo did clear up, sort of, that the police officer himself has protections in this case, but that doesn't protect the police department, etc. To be clear I'm assuming that the resident observed that the officer did not, in his eyes pursue on multiple occasions to "THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW" an action against someone that was of questionable status for whatever reason you like where whatever legal requirements for such actions were met. To fill in the blanks there was no other police investigation that such action would have thwarted, and the action was certainly feasible - just not done. Why is this tossed out?

It might not be. Tim's argument is the cop on the street getting sued. No one is arguing that the department itself is immune - it isn't. If there is a program or policy implemented or practice that limits then there could be agency liability. There are a ton of other reasons and laws that have the same type of langauge thorughout the country. No police department is immune from litigation.

So really the answer to my concern here is that this really nothing new? It happens all the time and the language here isn't that special? I am willing to accept that from a legal perspective, and you have stated that for other aspects of this law, so if you did already state that for this I'm sorry for missing it in the clutter of this thread. That being said I still don't think that this is really a good thing to be in the law, even if it is in other ones.I was also lead astray initially by the summary of what was Section I and ended up being Section J where the summary basically stated the officer was safe from being sued if we went too far which seems to be the opposite of what was actually signed into law.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

[

Not sure a police officer would take direction from me over his superior though

In this case, when the police department is sued for not being aggressive enough by "you" and losing won't the end result be following your direction rather than the one they thought was best?

Let's say I sue....it's because I thought they didn't do their job and something bad happened. I will either be validated or told I am a moron by a judge and jury of my peers. It's not just me. What I probably have issue with the most is that it's going to take a lot of time and court cases for AZ police officers to get a good idea of what is too much, too little etc.

Nothing bad had to happen other that they did too little in your mind as a matter of policy and/or practice that you perceive to exist. Whether you win or lose will have some bearing on shaping that policy and practice, but your larger point about taking the time to deal with these cases will also shape policy and/or practice - win or lose. So that is my point to my initial reply to you. The policies and practices are not being formulate by the law enforcement professionals but by the suing residents, the judges, and juries. And those policies and practices are not about how to do best perform their entire job but how much to pursue whether or not someone is properly documented.

What you are arguing is that common law shapes policy. You're right. It does. But there is no stopping it, nor safeguard to prevent it. That is how our system works. There will be litgation on this law - there is on almost every single law. What the common law creates from those suits will shape and effect policy. That is, in a nutshell, our legal system.

 

[timschochet]

Videoguy, if those changes were made to the law, it would be much harder to argue that it was unconstitutional. I, of course, would still be strongly opposed to it, for both ethical and political reasons. I would still be fearful that this law would lead to racism, and I doubt that the immigrant rights groups and the ACLU would see any practicable difference.

But it probably would be upheld if legally challenged.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So? I am not challenging your professional judgment, just trying to understand why this gets tossed out. Contrary to videoguys assertion it has not been answered at least in a way to me. Christo did clear up, sort of, that the police officer himself has protections in this case, but that doesn't protect the police department, etc. To be clear I'm assuming that the resident observed that the officer did not, in his eyes pursue on multiple occasions to "THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW" an action against someone that was of questionable status for whatever reason you like where whatever legal requirements for such actions were met. To fill in the blanks there was no other police investigation that such action would have thwarted, and the action was certainly feasible - just not done. Why is this tossed out?

It might not be. Tim's argument is the cop on the street getting sued. No one is arguing that the department itself is immune - it isn't. If there is a program or policy implemented or practice that limits then there could be agency liability. There are a ton of other reasons and laws that have the same type of langauge thorughout the country. No police department is immune from litigation.

So really the answer to my concern here is that this really nothing new? It happens all the time and the language here isn't that special? I am willing to accept that from a legal perspective, and you have stated that for other aspects of this law, so if you did already state that for this I'm sorry for missing it in the clutter of this thread. That being said I still don't think that this is really a good thing to be in the law, even if it is in other ones.I was also lead astray initially by the summary of what was Section I and ended up being Section J where the summary basically stated the officer was safe from being sued if we went too far which seems to be the opposite of what was actually signed into law.

Where I see your line of questioning going is that you are concerned that if a suit is filed it will have an effect on actual policy. You are right. It will. In that, yes, this is nothing new. That is what our common law is.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I would still be fearful that this law would lead to racism,

By all means, let's repeal every law that makes someone uncomfortable.

 

[timschochet]

I would still be fearful that this law would lead to racism,

By all means, let's repeal every law that makes someone uncomfortable.

The libertarian in me likes this idea a lot.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Changes being made to AZ law?

PHOENIX -- Arizona lawmakers have approved several changes to the recently passed sweeping law targeting illegal immigration.

If Gov. Jan Brewer supports the changes, they will go into effect at the same time as the new law, 90 days from now.

The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as weed-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.

Pearce defended that provision, saying there shouldn't be a restraint on when police act on a reasonable suspicion that somebody is in the country illegally. "It is a lawful contact," Pearce said.

The follow-on legislation approved Thursday also would change the law to specify that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law.

Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.

Brewer likely will sign the follow-on bill, said the spokesman, Paul Senseman.

Pearce said that change doesn't require a formal arrest before questioning but helps make it clear that racial profiling is not allowed.

These changes do make it better. I find it humorous (in a lawyer way) that in changing it to be more clear to stop the rhetorical nonsense that has been flying with this thing that they are also making the law significantly stronger and more encompassing by adding the local civil ordinance language. Of course, the follow up argument here is that loitering is, by my recollection, a local civil ordinance violation meaning that we could end up right back where we started here in some respects.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I would still be fearful that this law would lead to racism,

By all means, let's repeal every law that makes someone uncomfortable.

The libertarian in me likes this idea a lot.

Libertarians who, like the southern rebels of 1861, argue in support of legislated anarchy do neither a service to our nation nor to their supposed cause of protecting liberty.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Where I see your line of questioning going is that you are concerned that if a suit is filed it will have an effect on actual policy. You are right. It will. In that, yes, this is nothing new. That is what our common law is.

Mostly yes. Where I am going is that there this laws requires that every time that a larger investigation is not being jeopardized and that it is practical that there can be no policy or practice that deviates from "THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW", and if a resident suspects otherwise they can sue to force that policy or practice be changed. Is that common? Is that a good thing, a necessary evil?

 

[videoguy505]

Of course, the follow up argument here is that loitering is, by my recollection, a local civil ordinance violation meaning that we could end up right back where we started here in some respects.

In my mind, the most clearly unconstitutional part of the law is the prohibition on soliciting for work in a public place. IIRC, courts have previously & recently ruled that looking for work is an exercise of free speech.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Where I see your line of questioning going is that you are concerned that if a suit is filed it will have an effect on actual policy. You are right. It will. In that, yes, this is nothing new. That is what our common law is.

Mostly yes. Where I am going is that there this laws requires that every time that a larger investigation is not being jeopardized and that it is practical that there can be no policy or practice that deviates from "THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW", and if a resident suspects otherwise they can sue to force that policy or practice be changed. Is that common? Is that a good thing, a necessary evil?

Frankly I don't find this section to have that much teeth. If you have a police department with limited resources they simply cannot, by definition, do anything to the fullest extent permitted by federal law because the federal government has the FBI, DEA, National Guard, military, Treasury, CIA, Secret Service and a whole host of other agencies that can be called on in some capacity to deal with a case that has immigration issues. Sheriff Smith in smalltown Arizona has his deputy, a shotgun, and a county courthouse a few miles away.

 

[Two Deep]

Why don't we advertise "All illegals come fill out your free to stay in America form" then laugh as we ship their ### back where they came from.

 

[timschochet]

I would still be fearful that this law would lead to racism,

By all means, let's repeal every law that makes someone uncomfortable.

The libertarian in me likes this idea a lot.

Libertarians who, like the southern rebels of 1861, argue in support of legislated anarchy do neither a service to our nation nor to their supposed cause of protecting liberty.

I was being slightly facetious. As you already know, I am opposed to this law not because it makes people uncomfortable but because I am opposed to the policy behind it.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Let's say that a Mexican is questioned for loitering. Can he/she legally refuse to show documentation? Assuming or course that the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person in question is illegal. Serious question.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I disagree with Christo's read. This only indemnifies the officer. It does NOT mean you can't sue based on his behavior and recover from the government.Further, the principle of statutory interpretation that statutes should not be read in a manner which renders any statutory language superfluous in my opinion contradicts Christo's statement that this is "clearly directed at policy makers." Section G very clearly says "IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE." If the lawmakers had intended create a legal challenge to policymakers, there was no need to include the "or practice" language. That they chose to do so in my opinion makes it pretty clear that they intended to create a cause of action whose scope extends beyond policymakers.

How can an officer implement a policy or practice?

By simply doing something you are implementing a practice of doing it.If two cops decide that they have a reasonable suspicion that every dark-skinned guy with paint stains on his clothes within a mile of the Dupont store is an illegal immigrant, so they stop and interview each and every one of them, they are implementing a practice of stopping every dark-skinned guy with paint stains on his clothes within a mile of the Dupont store. Do you disagree?

 

[videoguy505]

Let's say that a Mexican is questioned for loitering. Can he/she legally refuse to show documentation? Assuming or course that the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person in question is illegal. Serious question.

I don't know if the person is loitering, i.e. has committed an arrestable offense... but that's not "reasonable suspicion", in that case, the officer has witnessed a misdemeanor and is investigating the complaint.If the person isn't literally "loitering", but is standing around outside in a public place, I don't think he has to give anything more than a name if there is a "reasonable suspicion" the person has committed an offense:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?in...amp;DocType=ARS

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Let's say that a Mexican is questioned for loitering. Can he/she legally refuse to show documentation? Assuming or course that the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person in question is illegal. Serious question.

I guess we are assuming that loitering is, in fact a municipal ordinance violation? We need to changes to pass first, so let's say they pass. Violation of an ordinance gives rise to the power in this law.Cop questions someone allegedly loitering. I would think that this is a lawful contact such that any further investigation is allowed. If the cop then has a reasonable suspicion that the person is illegal I would think he/she can ask for documentation. If the person produces either the immigration ID necessary or a valid drivers license they are presumed legal residents and the questioning ends. If they refuse to produce ID we have a person, allegedly violating a local ordinance, who is also now refusing to comply with a lawful order of a police officer (if such is a crime in Arizona, it is here) and by refusing that person is interfering with the administration of justice (another crime here at least). I would say the cop has the power to arrest said person and detain them based on these three violations of law. All off the top of my head but I think I've connected enough lines here.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I disagree with Christo's read. This only indemnifies the officer. It does NOT mean you can't sue based on his behavior and recover from the government.Further, the principle of statutory interpretation that statutes should not be read in a manner which renders any statutory language superfluous in my opinion contradicts Christo's statement that this is "clearly directed at policy makers." Section G very clearly says "IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE." If the lawmakers had intended create a legal challenge to policymakers, there was no need to include the "or practice" language. That they chose to do so in my opinion makes it pretty clear that they intended to create a cause of action whose scope extends beyond policymakers.

How can an officer implement a policy or practice?

By simply doing something you are implementing a practice of doing it.If two cops decide that they have a reasonable suspicion that every dark-skinned guy with paint stains on his clothes within a mile of the Dupont store is an illegal immigrant, so they stop and interview each and every one of them, they are implementing a practice of stopping every dark-skinned guy with paint stains on his clothes within a mile of the Dupont store. Do you disagree?

I do. It's a grey area though. The implementation of policy is not done by one cop or even two cops. It's a department level thing. Now, having said that, if the department "knows" or suspects that it is going on and does nothing they could be tacitly accepting that practice as an official policy. That's why some lawyers get paid the big bucks.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Let's say that a Mexican is questioned for loitering. Can he/she legally refuse to show documentation? Assuming or course that the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person in question is illegal. Serious question.

I guess we are assuming that loitering is, in fact a municipal ordinance violation? We need to changes to pass first, so let's say they pass. Violation of an ordinance gives rise to the power in this law.Cop questions someone allegedly loitering. I would think that this is a lawful contact such that any further investigation is allowed. If the cop then has a reasonable suspicion that the person is illegal I would think he/she can ask for documentation. If the person produces either the immigration ID necessary or a valid drivers license they are presumed legal residents and the questioning ends. If they refuse to produce ID we have a person, allegedly violating a local ordinance, who is also now refusing to comply with a lawful order of a police officer (if such is a crime in Arizona, it is here) and by refusing that person is interfering with the administration of justice (another crime here at least). I would say the cop has the power to arrest said person and detain them based on these three violations of law. All off the top of my head but I think I've connected enough lines here.

Eh. I think I am missing something here. I hate dealing with other state laws sometimes.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I disagree with Christo's read. This only indemnifies the officer. It does NOT mean you can't sue based on his behavior and recover from the government.

Further, the principle of statutory interpretation that statutes should not be read in a manner which renders any statutory language superfluous in my opinion contradicts Christo's statement that this is "clearly directed at policy makers." Section G very clearly says "IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE." If the lawmakers had intended create a legal challenge to policymakers, there was no need to include the "or practice" language. That they chose to do so in my opinion makes it pretty clear that they intended to create a cause of action whose scope extends beyond policymakers.

How can an officer implement a policy or practice?

By simply doing something you are implementing a practice of doing it.If two cops decide that they have a reasonable suspicion that every dark-skinned guy with paint stains on his clothes within a mile of the Dupont store is an illegal immigrant, so they stop and interview each and every one of them, they are implementing a practice of stopping every dark-skinned guy with paint stains on his clothes within a mile of the Dupont store. Do you disagree?

I do. It's a grey area though. The implementation of policy is not done by one cop or even two cops. It's a department level thing. Now, having said that, if the department "knows" or suspects that it is going on and does nothing they could be tacitly accepting that practice as an official policy. That's why some lawyers get paid the big bucks.

I agree with you on the bolded ... but what about the implementation of a practice? Remember, my argument is based on the idea that a practice is something different from a policy, otherwise the "or practice" language in Section G is (and forgive my dorky lawyerness here) "mere surplusage." If you assume that a practice is something different than a policy, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it's just a repeated behavior.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Steve Landsburg:

Writing in the New York Times, law professor Kris Kobach promises to rebut all the major objections to Arizona’s new anti-immigration law and proceeds to ignore all the major objections. Professor Kobach’s idea of a major objection is “It’s unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them”, whereas my idea of a major objection is “It’s idiotic, hateful and destructive to put obstacles in the way of productive activity.”

The number of “unauthorized aliens” in Arizona at any given moment is estimated as just under a half million—about the same as the number of Jews in New Jersey. Over half the text of the Arizona law is devoted to penalizing employers who hire these people. Now suppose for a moment that the New Jersey legislature were to pass a bill penalizing anyone who hires a Jew. Would Professor Kobach defend this law, as he does Arizona’s, by pointing out that it doesn’t require anyone to carry a driver’s license?

The anti-immigration hysterics keep warning us that foreigners want to come over here and exploit our welfare system. The insincerity of that stance is exposed whenever, as in Arizona, its proponents set out to prevent those very same foreigners from coming here and working.

(The point, obviously, is not that New Jersey Jews are like illegal aliens. The point is that we shouldn't be talking about driver's licenses; that's a fairly trivial side-issue.)

 

[bg0546]

Steve Landsburg:

Writing in the New York Times, law professor Kris Kobach promises to rebut all the major objections to Arizona’s new anti-immigration law and proceeds to ignore all the major objections. Professor Kobach’s idea of a major objection is “It’s unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them”, whereas my idea of a major objection is “It’s idiotic, hateful and destructive to put obstacles in the way of productive activity.”

The number of “unauthorized aliens” in Arizona at any given moment is estimated as just under a half million—about the same as the number of Jews in New Jersey. Over half the text of the Arizona law is devoted to penalizing employers who hire these people. Now suppose for a moment that the New Jersey legislature were to pass a bill penalizing anyone who hires a Jew. Would Professor Kobach defend this law, as he does Arizona’s, by pointing out that it doesn’t require anyone to carry a driver’s license?

The anti-immigration hysterics keep warning us that foreigners want to come over here and exploit our welfare system. The insincerity of that stance is exposed whenever, as in Arizona, its proponents set out to prevent those very same foreigners from coming here and working.

(The point, obviously, is not that New Jersey Jews are like illegal aliens. The point is that we shouldn't be talking about driver's licenses; that's a fairly trivial side-issue.)

That's just horrible. What a pathetic comparison. I'm curious why you'd post this Maurile. This seems way below your level of rhetoric.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Steve Landsburg:

Writing in the New York Times, law professor Kris Kobach promises to rebut all the major objections to Arizona’s new anti-immigration law and proceeds to ignore all the major objections. Professor Kobach’s idea of a major objection is “It’s unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them”, whereas my idea of a major objection is “It’s idiotic, hateful and destructive to put obstacles in the way of productive activity.”

The number of “unauthorized aliens” in Arizona at any given moment is estimated as just under a half million—about the same as the number of Jews in New Jersey. Over half the text of the Arizona law is devoted to penalizing employers who hire these people. Now suppose for a moment that the New Jersey legislature were to pass a bill penalizing anyone who hires a Jew. Would Professor Kobach defend this law, as he does Arizona’s, by pointing out that it doesn’t require anyone to carry a driver’s license?

The anti-immigration hysterics keep warning us that foreigners want to come over here and exploit our welfare system. The insincerity of that stance is exposed whenever, as in Arizona, its proponents set out to prevent those very same foreigners from coming here and working.

(The point, obviously, is not that New Jersey Jews are like illegal aliens. The point is that we shouldn't be talking about driver's licenses; that's a fairly trivial side-issue.)

I took an undergraduate class on Constitutional law from that guy (Kobach) and worked with him on my thesis. He's ridiculously smart, and I respect him as much as you can possibly respect an academic- in fact I'd say he part of the reason I have some libertarian views mixed in with my standard bleeding heart stuff. But that Times article is not his finest hour. Maybe its the space limitation, but it seemed like he totally missed the boat and just handpicked a couple easy arguments to refute. For example, the most obvious follow-up to his reasonable suspicion example of twelve people crammed in a van is ... what if it's five people? What if it's four? What if it's three? What if it's twelve, but they're white?

 

[The Commish]

[

Not sure a police officer would take direction from me over his superior though

In this case, when the police department is sued for not being aggressive enough by "you" and losing won't the end result be following your direction rather than the one they thought was best?

Let's say I sue....it's because I thought they didn't do their job and something bad happened. I will either be validated or told I am a moron by a judge and jury of my peers. It's not just me. What I probably have issue with the most is that it's going to take a lot of time and court cases for AZ police officers to get a good idea of what is too much, too little etc.

Nothing bad had to happen other that they did too little in your mind as a matter of policy and/or practice that you perceive to exist. Whether you win or lose will have some bearing on shaping that policy and practice, but your larger point about taking the time to deal with these cases will also shape policy and/or practice - win or lose. So that is my point to my initial reply to you. The policies and practices are not being formulate by the law enforcement professionals but by the suing residents, the judges, and juries. And those policies and practices are not about how to do best perform their entire job but how much to pursue whether or not someone is properly documented.

No, for me something bad would have had to happen Laws are constantly be formed/shaped by verdicts in a court of law. I don't know why we wouldn't expect that to happen here also. Yes, I fully understand that some laws are black and white, but some aren't. This one wouldn't be.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Let's say that a Mexican is questioned for loitering. Can he/she legally refuse to show documentation? Assuming or course that the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person in question is illegal. Serious question.

I guess we are assuming that loitering is, in fact a municipal ordinance violation? We need to changes to pass first, so let's say they pass. Violation of an ordinance gives rise to the power in this law.Cop questions someone allegedly loitering. I would think that this is a lawful contact such that any further investigation is allowed. If the cop then has a reasonable suspicion that the person is illegal I would think he/she can ask for documentation. If the person produces either the immigration ID necessary or a valid drivers license they are presumed legal residents and the questioning ends. If they refuse to produce ID we have a person, allegedly violating a local ordinance, who is also now refusing to comply with a lawful order of a police officer (if such is a crime in Arizona, it is here) and by refusing that person is interfering with the administration of justice (another crime here at least). I would say the cop has the power to arrest said person and detain them based on these three violations of law. All off the top of my head but I think I've connected enough lines here.

Eh. I think I am missing something here. I hate dealing with other state laws sometimes.

Maybe, but I think you're close.What bugs me is more of a personal complaint I have with law enforcement procedures in general. I think we'll see the cops coming up with minor offenses, albeit legitimate offenses, as a means to address the larger immigration question. I know that is a common law enforcement tactic, but I don't agree with it. It's possible that a group of people will be held to a higher standard under the law just because of their race. Because let's be honest about this. If I (a pasty white dude) am hanging out in the parking lot of a nursery, the cops probably wouldn't give me a second look.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I disagree with Christo's read. This only indemnifies the officer. It does NOT mean you can't sue based on his behavior and recover from the government.

Further, the principle of statutory interpretation that statutes should not be read in a manner which renders any statutory language superfluous in my opinion contradicts Christo's statement that this is "clearly directed at policy makers." Section G very clearly says "IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE." If the lawmakers had intended create a legal challenge to policymakers, there was no need to include the "or practice" language. That they chose to do so in my opinion makes it pretty clear that they intended to create a cause of action whose scope extends beyond policymakers.

How can an officer implement a policy or practice?

By simply doing something you are implementing a practice of doing it.If two cops decide that they have a reasonable suspicion that every dark-skinned guy with paint stains on his clothes within a mile of the Dupont store is an illegal immigrant, so they stop and interview each and every one of them, they are implementing a practice of stopping every dark-skinned guy with paint stains on his clothes within a mile of the Dupont store. Do you disagree?

I do. It's a grey area though. The implementation of policy is not done by one cop or even two cops. It's a department level thing. Now, having said that, if the department "knows" or suspects that it is going on and does nothing they could be tacitly accepting that practice as an official policy. That's why some lawyers get paid the big bucks.

I agree with you on the bolded ... but what about the implementation of a practice? Remember, my argument is based on the idea that a practice is something different from a policy, otherwise the "or practice" language in Section G is (and forgive my dorky lawyerness here) "mere surplusage." If you assume that a practice is something different than a policy, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it's just a repeated behavior.

(I'm going to go lawyer on you here, sorry). I don't know if you can assume that practice is different from policy in the method you give. That would be an answer for the Arizona statute or common law. There could very well be a common law holding out there that uses the phrase "policy or practice" in a method that the legislature made sure to mimic so as to not create a potential definition problem. And most actual written laws do have far too many words and useless language in them, so it is entirely possible that the language is also nothing more then mere suplusage because it took several dozen mena nd women and all their staffs every one of whom thinks they know better then the next to write this thing. It happens.But I understand, beyond those caveats, where you are going. I'm thinking, one cop does not make a practice, yet two might - that is your basic question, no? It's an interesting thought. I have to think common law kicks in there.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

No, for me something bad would have had to happen Laws are constantly be formed/shaped by verdicts in a court of law. I don't know why we wouldn't expect that to happen here also. Yes, I fully understand that some laws are black and white, but some aren't. This one wouldn't be.

No, this seems to be too black and white. The law is that you must do certain things with a couple of exception. None of those exceptions are the professional discretion based on established training. Ignoring Y23K's assertion that this is common language, it seems that this law is written to force the police departments to craft policies that err on the side of violating the rights of the residents (legal or otherwise) per the whims of the most hard line of the public.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Steve Landsburg:

whereas my idea of a major objection is “It’s idiotic, hateful and destructive to put obstacles in the way of productive activity.”

.

Here's another point - this specific attack on the law is rather useless and besides the point and doesn't deserve much in the way of addressing for this particular law. It would fit into the actual overall law of immigration policy, but not here.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Steve Landsburg:

Writing in the New York Times, law professor Kris Kobach promises to rebut all the major objections to Arizona’s new anti-immigration law and proceeds to ignore all the major objections. Professor Kobach’s idea of a major objection is “It’s unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them”, whereas my idea of a major objection is “It’s idiotic, hateful and destructive to put obstacles in the way of productive activity.”

The number of “unauthorized aliens” in Arizona at any given moment is estimated as just under a half million—about the same as the number of Jews in New Jersey. Over half the text of the Arizona law is devoted to penalizing employers who hire these people. Now suppose for a moment that the New Jersey legislature were to pass a bill penalizing anyone who hires a Jew. Would Professor Kobach defend this law, as he does Arizona’s, by pointing out that it doesn’t require anyone to carry a driver’s license?

The anti-immigration hysterics keep warning us that foreigners want to come over here and exploit our welfare system. The insincerity of that stance is exposed whenever, as in Arizona, its proponents set out to prevent those very same foreigners from coming here and working.

(The point, obviously, is not that New Jersey Jews are like illegal aliens. The point is that we shouldn't be talking about driver's licenses; that's a fairly trivial side-issue.)

Now having read the rest of this article I can say without hesitation that the Jew anaolgy might just be the single dumbest thing said about this law to date. I have to wonder if the writer here needs a helmet to take a shower.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No, for me something bad would have had to happen Laws are constantly be formed/shaped by verdicts in a court of law. I don't know why we wouldn't expect that to happen here also. Yes, I fully understand that some laws are black and white, but some aren't. This one wouldn't be.

No, this seems to be too black and white. The law is that you must do certain things with a couple of exception. None of those exceptions are the professional discretion based on established training. Ignoring Y23K's assertion that this is common language, it seems that this law is written to force the police departments to craft policies that err on the side of violating the rights of the residents (legal or otherwise) per the whims of the most hard line of the public.

I don't get that at all.

 

[Christo]

I disagree with Christo's read. This only indemnifies the officer. It does NOT mean you can't sue based on his behavior and recover from the government.Further, the principle of statutory interpretation that statutes should not be read in a manner which renders any statutory language superfluous in my opinion contradicts Christo's statement that this is "clearly directed at policy makers." Section G very clearly says "IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE." If the lawmakers had intended create a legal challenge to policymakers, there was no need to include the "or practice" language. That they chose to do so in my opinion makes it pretty clear that they intended to create a cause of action whose scope extends beyond policymakers.

How can an officer implement a policy or practice?

Cop>Let's see, today I'll not pull over some Mexicans.

 

[Christo]

Yes, I acknowledged this a page or two ago. Section J which I already posted protects the officer's wallet if he gets caught up in this, I'm asking what gets this suit thrown out of court as nonsense.

The same as any case: the facts.

Neither of these replies answer anything. Sorry.

Gee, how do you think meritless lawsuits get thrown out?

 

[Christo]

How can an officer implement a policy or practice?

But you are missing the point. I don't care with these questions about the police officer being sued in the sense that it is waste of resources or it injures the officer, I care about how these suits will shape the actual policies and practices the police departments would want to put in place. They train with well thought out safe guards to preserve the officers professionalism and standing in the community and that gets tossed to the side when someone sues because the officers don't go far enough.

English please.

 

[TobiasFunke]

(I'm going to go lawyer on you here, sorry). I don't know if you can assume that practice is different from policy in the method you give. That would be an answer for the Arizona statute or common law. There could very well be a common law holding out there that uses the phrase "policy or practice" in a method that the legislature made sure to mimic so as to not create a potential definition problem. And most actual written laws do have far too many words and useless language in them, so it is entirely possible that the language is also nothing more then mere suplusage because it took several dozen mena nd women and all their staffs every one of whom thinks they know better then the next to write this thing. It happens.

But I understand, beyond those caveats, where you are going. I'm thinking, one cop does not make a practice, yet two might - that is your basic question, no? It's an interesting thought. I have to think common law kicks in there.

This is an interesting point- "policy or practice" as a term of art, and thus the "or practice" doesn't need to be ascribed any separate meaning. Hadn't thought of that.

FYI- I just pulled up a version of the bill that did not include the "or practice" language. Not sure which version is the final one, but it's clear that either someone else had the same problem with it that I did and removed it somewhere along the line, or that someone deliberately broadened Section G somewhere along the line by inserting it.

 

[Christo]

Neither of these replies answer anything. Sorry.

Why not? IANAL but I'm gonna guess that if a citizen files suit against an individual cop his lawyer (or the cities or the unions) go to court and file a motion telling the judge that the law indemnified individual cops from being sued. You know, they tell the judge the FACTS. Then the judge rules in their favor and throws the suit out. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.

Re-read section J. All it does is compensate the officer if he sued, it doesn't toss out the suit.in·dem·ni·fy /ɪnˈdɛmnəˌfaɪ/ Show Spelled[in-dem-nuh-fahy] Show IPA

–verb (used with object),-fied, -fy·ing.

1.to compensate for damage or loss sustained, expense incurred, etc.

2.to guard or secure against anticipated loss; give security against (future damage or liability).

Now you're not even reading the posts before responding.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

(I'm going to go lawyer on you here, sorry). I don't know if you can assume that practice is different from policy in the method you give. That would be an answer for the Arizona statute or common law. There could very well be a common law holding out there that uses the phrase "policy or practice" in a method that the legislature made sure to mimic so as to not create a potential definition problem. And most actual written laws do have far too many words and useless language in them, so it is entirely possible that the language is also nothing more then mere suplusage because it took several dozen mena nd women and all their staffs every one of whom thinks they know better then the next to write this thing. It happens.

But I understand, beyond those caveats, where you are going. I'm thinking, one cop does not make a practice, yet two might - that is your basic question, no? It's an interesting thought. I have to think common law kicks in there.

This is an interesting point- "policy or practice" as a term of art, and thus the "or practice" doesn't need to be ascribed any separate meaning. Hadn't thought of that.

FYI- I just pulled up a version of the bill that did not include the "or practice" language. Not sure which version is the final one, but it's clear that either someone else had the same problem with it that I did and removed it somewhere along the line, or that someone deliberately broadened Section G somewhere along the line by inserting it.

Entirely possible. Stuff like that happens all the time drafting laws and policies. Best bet is to locate the text of the bill the Governor signed because that is the textual law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes, I acknowledged this a page or two ago. Section J which I already posted protects the officer's wallet if he gets caught up in this, I'm asking what gets this suit thrown out of court as nonsense.

The same as any case: the facts.

Neither of these replies answer anything. Sorry.

Gee, how do you think meritless lawsuits get thrown out?

What exactly makes the accusation that Officer Christo is, as a matter of practice not pursuing these cases to the fullest extent allowed by the federal government meritless? Don't be an and say facts.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Neither of these replies answer anything. Sorry.

Why not? IANAL but I'm gonna guess that if a citizen files suit against an individual cop his lawyer (or the cities or the unions) go to court and file a motion telling the judge that the law indemnified individual cops from being sued. You know, they tell the judge the FACTS. Then the judge rules in their favor and throws the suit out. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.

Re-read section J. All it does is compensate the officer if he sued, it doesn't toss out the suit.in·dem·ni·fy /ɪnˈdɛmnəˌfaɪ/ Show Spelled[in-dem-nuh-fahy] Show IPA

–verb (used with object),-fied, -fy·ing.

1.to compensate for damage or loss sustained, expense incurred, etc.

2.to guard or secure against anticipated loss; give security against (future damage or liability).

Now you're not even reading the posts before responding.

What does the FACT that "the law indemnified individual cops from being sued" have to do with whether or not the case can be brought to begin with? If you cut out the first two sentences, may be you have the same irrelevant point from the post above. But I read these five sentences as one continuous thought, one point that "the law indemnified individual cops from being sued" is the FACT that gets this tossed out.

 

[Rich Conway]

timmy, a political party isn't committing suicide when it acts in what the majority of the voting base considers to be their best interest. The majority of this country - most especially those states on the border - have shown a clear and distinct desire to have illegal immigration controlled and cleaned up.

Did you happen to miss the reaction of the country on the McCain-Kennedy Act that Bush said he would "see them at the signing"? The bi-partisan pro-illegal end run went down in flames when Congress read their constituents' responses to it.

The rest of the country as a majority doesn't think like you do, and you aren't mainstream.

Let me explain to you why you're wrong. It has to do with political pluralism. You are absolutely right that the majority of Americans doesn't agree with me on the issue of illegal immigration. Among Republicans, probably up to 70% of voters are in favor of tighter restrictions and opposed to amnesty. Among Democrats, the number is lower, but still probably 40-45%. And independents nearly match Republicans with regard to this issue, giving a clear majority in favor of tighter restrictions and against amnesty.

However, most Americans are not one-issue voters. Specifically, those voters who are Democrat are not going to vote Republican based on this issue. But what IS going to happen is that Latinos are going to vote in much larger numbers, and they're all going to vote for Democrats. So despite the fact that, in this issue, Republicans may represent the majority of Americans, they're going to lose elections, because they don't represent the pluralistic majority. That's what I mean when I wrote that they are committing political suicide. Hope that makes sense.

timschochet is pretty on target here. Although a heavy majority favors the Republican position (for the sake of argument, simplifying this to: Republican position = tighter controls/enforcement), most of that majority doesn't consider this the top issue on which they will decide their vote. A much larger percentage of the group that disagrees with the Republican position does consider this the top issue. Thus, it's possible that this position is a net vote loser even though it's a position the majority agrees with.

 

[Two Deep]

Now they are trying to protest at Wrigley Field, Cubs /Diamonbacks game. The Cubs diehards will beat the piss out of these protesters.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Now they are trying to protest at Wrigley Field, Cubs /Diamonbacks game. The Cubs diehards will beat the piss out of these protesters.

 

[Rich Conway]

Now they are trying to protest at Wrigley Field, Cubs /Diamonbacks game. The Cubs diehards will beat the piss out of these protesters.

I don't really get this. A protest in Arizona, I could understand, and the ballpark is a good backdrop. But how is protesting the Diamondbacks in Chicago going to do any good? It's not like the players are state senators in the offseason.