Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (2 Viewers)

[perry147]

The finger is never pointed at the true culprit, the people who encourage illegal immigration because it is good for their bottom line....the company/corporations/business/people/etc that HIRE and DEPEND on cheap/illegal labor. You NEVER here the media call out/point fingers this group, even though these business owners/CEO's should be going to jail along with the immigrants...funny how that works...not really, it's a ridiculous double standard, and of course the corporate media, for the most part, NEVER talks about the true issue...If these corporations/business owners were not hiring the illegals, they WOULD NOT COME to the USA. That is why this issue will always be paid lip service by the powers that be/politicians...because many of the the power brokers DEPEND on illegal labor to make their profits...They NEED to be called out and PUNISHED HARSHLY, or do we just give them a pass just because? Because why? They are 50% of the problem!

The media and politicians won't, but lots of us here have pointed this out over and over.My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance. If we did this and enforced it, the problem would solve itself almost immediately.

That would about do it.And everyone's civil liberties would be unaffected.

 

[videoguy505]

The finger is never pointed at the true culprit, the people who encourage illegal immigration because it is good for their bottom line....the company/corporations/business/people/etc that HIRE and DEPEND on cheap/illegal labor.

I'm totally OK with the added penalties, restrictions, and verification requirements for business in this new law.

 

[BoulderBob]

The finger is never pointed at the true culprit, the people who encourage illegal immigration because it is good for their bottom line....the company/corporations/business/people/etc that HIRE and DEPEND on cheap/illegal labor. You NEVER here the media call out/point fingers this group, even though these business owners/CEO's should be going to jail along with the immigrants...funny how that works...not really, it's a ridiculous double standard, and of course the corporate media, for the most part, NEVER talks about the true issue...If these corporations/business owners were not hiring the illegals, they WOULD NOT COME to the USA. That is why this issue will always be paid lip service by the powers that be/politicians...because many of the the power brokers DEPEND on illegal labor to make their profits...They NEED to be called out and PUNISHED HARSHLY, or do we just give them a pass just because? Because why? They are 50% of the problem!

The media and politicians won't, but lots of us here have pointed this out over and over.My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance. If we did this and enforced it, the problem would solve itself almost immediately.

Sounds good to me, and I'm glad(didn't read the thread) that we aren't just a bunch of mindless boobs that can't see what the real issue happens to be...I just can't stand the people that point to the "evil" illegal immigrants when they are only doing what they have been encouraged to do by people/business/corporations from the USA. Cheap labor is cheap labor, and ridiculous number of business in Arizona, let alone the USA...depend of these "evil" immigrants...sorry for the rants...this issue always pisses me off. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of illegal immigrants, I just realize why they are coming here and knowing the reasons makes it very hard not to feel for some of them...they are just caught in this system...

 

[Dexter Manley]

LOL

Diamondbacks likely to see immigration law protests in Chicago

The Diamondbacks' game this afternoon in Chicago's Wrigley Field is expected to turn political - at least outside of the Friendly Confines.

By Brian Kersey, AP

According to the Arizona Republic, protesters will gather to oppose Arizona's new immigration law, which requires all migrants to carry documentation and allows police to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It is slated to take effect this summer. (President Obama opposes it.)

According to the Associated Press, activists around the country have called for a boycott of Arizona tourism and of state businesses, including its athletic teams.

The Chicago protest is being led by Tony Herrera, who is organizing a movement called "Boycott Arizona 2010.''

Herrera told the Arizona Republic the Diamondbacks' managing partner, Ken Kendrick, is a Republican supporter and that the team is an ambassador for the state of Arizona. Diamondbacks spokesman Shaun Rachau said the protests are unfair.

"This new law was a Republican bill,'' Herrera told the newspaper. "Until the law is changed, there should be protests.''

In a statement, Rachau said the organization has "communicated to Boycott Arizona 2010 leader Tony Herrera that Kendrick personally opposes Bill 1070. The team also explained that Kendrick is one of nearly 75 owners of the (Diamondbacks) and none of his, nor do the other owners', personal contributions reflect organizational preferences.''

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/da...ts-in-chicago/1

 

[LHUCKS]

The finger is never pointed at the true culprit, the people who encourage illegal immigration because it is good for their bottom line....the company/corporations/business/people/etc that HIRE and DEPEND on cheap/illegal labor.

Actually, we passed this law in AZ a few years ago and it has been moderately successful.Unfortunately it is targeted at the honest illegals and not the troublemaking illegals that commit violent crimes, steal cars, kidnap etc. etc.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal DirectorArizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence.

You can stop reading here. Shame on any legal institution for being so boldly false with actual law. It is an actual federal law that requires immigrants to have their identification on them or be subject to criminal penalty. It's pieces like this that have the blowback effect I accussed tim of.

There seems to be some disagreement here. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU are organizations I respect, and they both believe this law is unconstitutional for the reasons stated. However, I have to admit that you also make a good point, and I'm realizing that when it comes to these issues I'm in over my head attempting to dispute you- I frankly don't know enough about the actual law to do so, so I'm going to stop. Well thought of lawyers do disagree with you, I doubt they are all being disingenous, so I'm going to shut up about the constitutionality of this law, (which I personally detest) and wait to see what others say about it.

There are potential issues here. No one should dispute that. But the whole "show me your papers you scum" rhetoric is rather repulsive.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The finger is never pointed at the true culprit, the people who encourage illegal immigration because it is good for their bottom line....

The true culprit is how we administer welfare, and by welfare I mean it in a broad sense and not just TANF. Across the all income groups there is about a 40% tax on the next dollar earned when you factor in transfers (welfare). Because of that, at the low end of the pay scale there is a disincentive to take low paying jobs. Mix in a minimum wage and there is really no good reason for Americans to perform these tasks. If we replace this type of welfare so that there is no punishment for taking such a job in lost benefits there would be incentive for those lazy Americans to go out and earn an extra buck.

 

[Ray Stevens]

My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance.

A couple of years ago, our company hired a couple of illegals unknowingly. They gave us false SSNs. Should we have been fined?

 

[Limp Ditka]

My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance.

A couple of years ago, our company hired a couple of illegals unknowingly. They gave us false SSNs. Should we have been fined?

Yes, fine evetybody.

 

[Bronco Billy]

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU are organizations I respect

No suprises there...

 

[Bronco Billy]

My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance.

A couple of years ago, our company hired a couple of illegals unknowingly. They gave us false SSNs. Should we have been fined?

Pretty easy to check. Yes, they should have been fined for failing to do what is very simple diligence.

 

[RCon]

My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance.

A couple of years ago, our company hired a couple of illegals unknowingly. They gave us false SSNs. Should we have been fined?

Nope, not if you sent those SSNs on to a federal clearinghouse and they were approved as legit. Basically, in my plan, the feds would be responsible for determining whether employees are here legally or not. As long as the feds say John Doe is OK, no fine even if John turns out to be here illegally. But if you never checked with the feds whether John Doe was legal, that would be on you.

 

[Ray Stevens]

If these corporations/business owners were not hiring the illegals, they WOULD NOT COME to the USA. That is why this issue will always be paid lip service by the powers that be/politicians...because many of the the power brokers DEPEND on illegal labor to make their profits...

Of course that is true. I don't think anyone on either side will deny that. The issues come on the enforcement side. Is it worth it? I can tell you first hand, that the farming industry couldn't survive without the labor provided by Mexicans, legal or not.Here is an overly simplified background on the agriculture industry in this state, just for a little perspective. In the late 1800s and up until about WW2, California established several reclamation districts. The Central Valley and (to an extent) much of the Salinas Valley are essentially flood plains in California. The reclamation districts did exactly what their name implies. They reclaimed the flood plains for farmland. They built dams and levees, as well as interior aqueducts, to make farming viable. And it worked. The climate here is just about perfect for growing almost anything.Along with the steady increase in farmable land, came a steady increase in labor required. In the early 1900s, Chinese laborers were used primarily. Then came the 1930s. I'm sure more have read The Grapes of Wrath, and that is a true story. Corporate farms advertised in the midwest for needed labor, and they got it in for form of destitute "Okies". That's the history of much of my family.Eventually the Okies (the ones that decided to stay) assimilated and moved away from agriculturally related occupations. But the need for labor still existed. Through the years, even despite urban sprawl, the farmable land has remained fairly consistent. Relatively new industries have helped this, like the guys who have vineyards that occupy land that was unusable for anything other than cattle less than 30 years ago.The point is this. California has always had a need for labor, and it has always had a need that was great enough to look outside of it's own borders, whether it be domestically or internationally. To cut off the supply, as some have suggested, would be devastating.I can't speak intelligently on other areas (geographically speaking), but I don't see any positives here.

 

[Ray Stevens]

My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance.

A couple of years ago, our company hired a couple of illegals unknowingly. They gave us false SSNs. Should we have been fined?

Pretty easy to check. Yes, they should have been fined for failing to do what is very simple diligence.

We did everything required under the law, including pay taxes on the false numbers. We also canned them when the IRS informed us that there was a problem.But yes, pay a fine anyway. That makes sense.

 

[bg0546]

The media and politicians won't, but lots of us here have pointed this out over and over.

My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance. If we did this and enforced it, the problem would solve itself almost immediately.

Arizona passed a bill going after employers with harsh penalties a few years ago. Had it worked well I'm pretty sure the current bill wouldn't have been passed. http://www.google.com/search?q=arizona+hb+...lient=firefox-a

 

[Christo]

Yeah, yeah. I know the our resident lefty wingnuts are going to immediately jump on this guy's credentials. But if you take off the blinders for a minute he makes some solid arguments.

If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious . . .

I stopped reading here.

You should read more.

It's timmy. Same old, same old. Not knowing facts. Misunderstanding the law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...The point is this. California has always had a need for labor, and it has always had a need that was great enough to look outside of it's own borders, whether it be domestically or internationally. To cut off the supply, as some have suggested, would be devastating.I can't speak intelligently on other areas (geographically speaking), but I don't see any positives here.

If it hasn't already appeared in print, any day now the Maryland newspapers will print a story about congress putting together emergency legislation to allow more "seasonal workers" into the country because the annual quotas have already been used up. This is important for Maryland's seafood industry, specifically the crab picking business which can't find anyone else willing to pick crab meat during the annual crab harvest for prices that can keep them competitive with the ever increasing competition, especially from Asia. Now the reason I'm pretty certain this article has just appeared or will soon is because it appears just about every year at about this time.

 

[tommyGunZ]

By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal DirectorArizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence.

You can stop reading here. Shame on any legal institution for being so boldly false with actual law. It is an actual federal law that requires immigrants to have their identification on them or be subject to criminal penalty. It's pieces like this that have the blowback effect I accussed tim of.

There seems to be some disagreement here. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU are organizations I respect, and they both believe this law is unconstitutional for the reasons stated. However, I have to admit that you also make a good point, and I'm realizing that when it comes to these issues I'm in over my head attempting to dispute you- I frankly don't know enough about the actual law to do so, so I'm going to stop. Well thought of lawyers do disagree with you, I doubt they are all being disingenous, so I'm going to shut up about the constitutionality of this law, (which I personally detest) and wait to see what others say about it.

There are potential issues here. No one should dispute that. But the whole "show me your papers you scum" rhetoric is rather repulsive.

Other than the fact that requiring folks who look like illegals to show their papers is pretty much the issue here, great post Yank.

 

[RCon]

Other than the fact that requiring folks who look like illegals to show their papers is pretty much the issue here, great post Yank.

Excellent reading of the whole thread. Specifically, this legislation doesn't "require folks who look like illegals to show their papers", a point to which even most of the opponents have already agreed.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Other than the fact that requiring folks who look like illegals to show their papers is pretty much the issue here, great post Yank.

Excellent reading of the whole thread. Specifically, this legislation doesn't "require folks who look like illegals to show their papers", a point to which even most of the opponents have already agreed.

"most opponents" doesn't include ideologues like tommy.

 

[perry147]

This is the section the whole thing turns on, in my mind:

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

What does "for any lawful contact" mean? Initiated by whom? Under what circumstances?

BumpAnyone?None of the usual suspects have answered this question.The ACLU and the Southern Poverty have both files suit because of this bill, that it itself means there legal constitutional questions about this bill.But for some odd reason those usual suspects can't understand why, while at the same time being adamantly opposed to the Heath Care Bill for being too invasive and BIG Government - color me surprised.

 

[videoguy505]

Welcome to the thread perry. We're on page 21, this deep in it's only for the big boys. Feel free to drop back down to the single digit pages for a bit and catch up until you're ready to play on our level.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Drug Kingpin: You need to gather a team and kidnap Inigo Montoya and his family.

Subordinate: We can't, Arizona is getting totally badass on illegal immigrants.

Drug Kingpin: Crap. OK, let's go bowling instead.

More like,

COP: Those guys look shady as hell, kind of like those guys that gunned down that family last week

COPII: I wish we had the latitude to check them out real quick

COPI: Yeah, oh well, let's go get some coffee

The Steven Bochco Correspondence Course really paid off for you.BTW, am I the only one who pictures one of those "make your own animated movies" when reading LHUCKS' dialogue?

edit: like this: http://www.xtranormal.com/profile/2455113/

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Just wanted to add that I'm against REAL ID as well.

 

[perry147]

Welcome to the thread perry. We're on page 21, this deep in it's only for the big boys. Feel free to drop back down to the single digit pages for a bit and catch up until you're ready to play on our level.

The post I bumped was only 1 page back.Use your fingers to count on VG if you lose count in your head.

 

[videoguy505]

Just wanted to add that I'm against #### ## as well.

Please edit your post. I'm trying to get on record how many different posters bring up the "your papers please" in opposition, before the democrat plan requiring #### ## is introduced.

 

[perry147]

Just wanted to add that I'm against #### ## as well.

Please edit your post. I'm trying to get on record how many different posters bring up the "your papers please" in opposition, before the democrat plan requiring #### ## is introduced.

I am still counting the hypocrites why oppose the health care bill on the grounds that it gives the government too much power, but are slobbering with glee at this bill because it focuses on a minority group that they feel is a voting threat.

 

[RCon]

Just wanted to add that I'm against #### ## as well.

Please edit your post. I'm trying to get on record how many different posters bring up the "your papers please" in opposition, before the democrat plan requiring #### ## is introduced.

I am still counting the hypocrites why oppose the health care bill on the grounds that it gives the government too much power, but are slobbering with glee at this bill because it focuses on a minority group that they feel is a voting threat.

So I take it you missed all the parts of this thread where it's been determined that the new bill only echoes the existing federal law that have been on the books for decades?

 

[Ray Stevens]

Just wanted to add that I'm against #### ## as well.

Please edit your post. I'm trying to get on record how many different posters bring up the "your papers please" in opposition, before the democrat plan requiring #### ## is introduced.

Real ID was sponsored and supported by conservatives. If you're trying to somehow find hypocrisy, you should probably look elsewhere.

The Real ID Act has faced criticism from across the political spectrum and remains the subject of several ongoing controversies. Opponents of the Real ID Act include libertarian groups, in particular the Cato Institute; immigrant advocacy groups; human and civil rights organizations, including ACLU; privacy advocacy groups, including 511 campaign; good government and government accountability groups; labor groups such as AFL-CIO; People for the American Way; consumer and patient protection groups; some gun rights groups; many state lawmakers, state legislatures and governors; and others. [20][21] Real ID is opposed by such groups as Gun Owners of America, by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as well as the Obama administration. Along with the Bush administration, the Real ID Act is strongly supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation and by many anti-illegal immigration advocates. [20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

 

[videoguy505]

You're right, Ray, I confused REAL ID with the biometric national ID.

 

[BeTheMatch]

By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal DirectorArizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence.

You can stop reading here. Shame on any legal institution for being so boldly false with actual law. It is an actual federal law that requires immigrants to have their identification on them or be subject to criminal penalty. It's pieces like this that have the blowback effect I accussed tim of.

What about the U.S. citizens who are forced to produce papers? They're not immigrants. Yet they'll still be subject to detainment. That's the problem - one of many.

 

[videoguy505]

By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal Director

Arizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.

By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.

Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence.

You can stop reading here. Shame on any legal institution for being so boldly false with actual law. It is an actual federal law that requires immigrants to have their identification on them or be subject to criminal penalty. It's pieces like this that have the blowback effect I accussed tim of.

What about the U.S. citizens who are forced to produce papers? They're not immigrants. Yet they'll still be subject to detainment. That's the problem - one of many.

Where are people forced to produce papers? Legal or illegal suspects? Arizona has a Stop and Identify law that states, unless arrested, no one has to provide anything more than a real legal name if asked. The new AZ law states if a person volunteers a valid state ID, they are presumed to be in the country legally. If not, the onus is on law enforcement to verify the person's status with ICE/INS.. they are not to assume everyone will have ID. The only other time ID is mentioned in the law is a fine for legal aliens not having their green card at all times, which is already a federal law.

I'll agree there's a problem of detainment, under the specific condition of a probable cause search concluding before the reply from ICE. I've brought that up in this thread and others already, and it's one of the reasons I don't support this law as written. But nowhere did I read of anyone forced to provide documentation.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal DirectorArizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence.

You can stop reading here. Shame on any legal institution for being so boldly false with actual law. It is an actual federal law that requires immigrants to have their identification on them or be subject to criminal penalty. It's pieces like this that have the blowback effect I accussed tim of.

There seems to be some disagreement here. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU are organizations I respect, and they both believe this law is unconstitutional for the reasons stated. However, I have to admit that you also make a good point, and I'm realizing that when it comes to these issues I'm in over my head attempting to dispute you- I frankly don't know enough about the actual law to do so, so I'm going to stop. Well thought of lawyers do disagree with you, I doubt they are all being disingenous, so I'm going to shut up about the constitutionality of this law, (which I personally detest) and wait to see what others say about it.

There are potential issues here. No one should dispute that. But the whole "show me your papers you scum" rhetoric is rather repulsive.

Other than the fact that requiring folks who look like illegals to show their papers is pretty much the issue here, great post Yank.

You continue to offer nothing of substance here.

 

[perry147]

Just wanted to add that I'm against #### ## as well.

Please edit your post. I'm trying to get on record how many different posters bring up the "your papers please" in opposition, before the democrat plan requiring #### ## is introduced.

I am still counting the hypocrites why oppose the health care bill on the grounds that it gives the government too much power, but are slobbering with glee at this bill because it focuses on a minority group that they feel is a voting threat.

So I take it you missed all the parts of this thread where it's been determined that the new bill only echoes the existing federal law that have been on the books for decades?

But those are people crossing the border, or have already alleged to be illegals by other proof.This is bill will allow officers a free card to stop and detain anyone.

 

[Thorn]

Just wanted to add that I'm against #### ## as well.

Please edit your post. I'm trying to get on record how many different posters bring up the "your papers please" in opposition, before the democrat plan requiring #### ## is introduced.

I am still counting the hypocrites why oppose the health care bill on the grounds that it gives the government too much power, but are slobbering with glee at this bill because it focuses on a minority group that they feel is a voting threat.

So I take it you missed all the parts of this thread where it's been determined that the new bill only echoes the existing federal law that have been on the books for decades?

I sure did.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This is the section the whole thing turns on, in my mind:

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

What does "for any lawful contact" mean? Initiated by whom? Under what circumstances?

BumpAnyone?None of the usual suspects have answered this question.The ACLU and the Southern Poverty have both files suit because of this bill, that it itself means there legal constitutional questions about this bill.But for some odd reason those usual suspects can't understand why, while at the same time being adamantly opposed to the Heath Care Bill for being too invasive and BIG Government - color me surprised.

Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Just wanted to add that I'm against #### ## as well.

Please edit your post. I'm trying to get on record how many different posters bring up the "your papers please" in opposition, before the democrat plan requiring #### ## is introduced.

I am still counting the hypocrites why oppose the health care bill on the grounds that it gives the government too much power, but are slobbering with glee at this bill because it focuses on a minority group that they feel is a voting threat.

 

[Thorn]

Dear Lord. If we could ignore perry for a moment, do you have an opinion on what "for any lawful contact" means?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal DirectorArizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence.

You can stop reading here. Shame on any legal institution for being so boldly false with actual law. It is an actual federal law that requires immigrants to have their identification on them or be subject to criminal penalty. It's pieces like this that have the blowback effect I accussed tim of.

What about the U.S. citizens who are forced to produce papers? They're not immigrants. Yet they'll still be subject to detainment. That's the problem - one of many.

Citizens are required to prove identification to police officers all the time. I'm not sure of your point.

 

[RCon]

Just wanted to add that I'm against #### ## as well.

Please edit your post. I'm trying to get on record how many different posters bring up the "your papers please" in opposition, before the democrat plan requiring #### ## is introduced.

I am still counting the hypocrites why oppose the health care bill on the grounds that it gives the government too much power, but are slobbering with glee at this bill because it focuses on a minority group that they feel is a voting threat.

So I take it you missed all the parts of this thread where it's been determined that the new bill only echoes the existing federal law that have been on the books for decades?

But those are people crossing the border, or have already alleged to be illegals by other proof.This is bill will allow officers a free card to stop and detain anyone.

No it doesn't.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Dear Lord. If we could ignore perry for a moment, do you have an opinion on what "for any lawful contact" means?

Yeah, it's the same thing as any other contact with law enforcement someone would have. No cop has the authority or power to walk to up to anyone for any reason without any form of reasonable suspicion of actual malice or probable cause and either detain that person by method of blocking a walkway or actually putting them in a police car and arresting them. The badge isn't a license to do anything, and this law doesn't grant that power.As for a specific definition, there probably isn't one but instead its based on Arizona common law.

 

[videoguy505]

Dear Lord. If we could ignore perry for a moment, do you have an opinion on what "for any lawful contact" means?

Sorry, Thorn. The question has been asked in this thread about a dozen times, I've asked it myself just about every day since 4/15 on page 3 (including once in response to Perry on 4/23, but he left the thread to go lefty-wacko somewhere else and never caught up). In short, I'm unaware of, and no one has been able to cite, a legal definition of "lawful contact".

Earlier today, I found a libertarian article asking the same question. To me, the law's lack of definition on this term leaves an opening too broad for my liking. Coupled with the reservations I already have about how the courts have interpreted "reasonable suspicion" over the last 30 years, it's something I wish changed in this law.

ETA:

The worst-case scenario is that Hispanics will face possible police harassment anytime they venture out of the house. Not to worry, says Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who helped draft the text.

He told The Washington Examiner that cops can ask for immigration information only when they have "lawful contact" with someone—when "the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law."

In fact, the law doesn't define the crucial term. One of the dictionary definitions of "contact" is "immediate proximity," which suggests that anytime a possible illegal immigrant comes in sight of a cop, the cop has a legal duty to check her papers.

Law professor Miller says "lawful contact" could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him—something police are allowed to do—he may have established "lawful contact."

But let's suppose a cop can get nosy only if he has already intercepted someone for, say, a traffic violation. That's cold comfort for the innocent. Any officer who wants to make a stop can easily come up with some trivial transgression—improper lane change, going 1 mph over the speed limit, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

2nd Edit: However, a counterpoint that has been brought up is that, since Hispanics make up +25% of the AZ population, merely being Hispanic should never raise reasonable suspicion. It's an interesting argument but one I'm not ready to buy.

 

[Thorn]

Dear Lord. If we could ignore perry for a moment, do you have an opinion on what "for any lawful contact" means?

Sorry, Thorn. The question has been asked in this thread about a dozen times, I've asked it myself just about every day since 4/15 on page 3 (including once in response to Perry on 4/23, but he left the thread to go lefty-wacko somewhere else and never caught up). In short, I'm unaware of, and no one has been able to cite, a legal definition of "lawful contact".

Earlier today, I found a libertarian article asking the same question. To me, the law's lack of definition on this term leaves an opening too broad for my liking. Coupled with the reservations I already have about how the courts have interpreted "reasonable suspicion" over the last 30 years, it's something I wish changed in this law.

ETA:

The worst-case scenario is that Hispanics will face possible police harassment anytime they venture out of the house. Not to worry, says Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who helped draft the text.

He told The Washington Examiner that cops can ask for immigration information only when they have "lawful contact" with someone—when "the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law."

In fact, the law doesn't define the crucial term. One of the dictionary definitions of "contact" is "immediate proximity," which suggests that anytime a possible illegal immigrant comes in sight of a cop, the cop has a legal duty to check her papers.

Law professor Miller says "lawful contact" could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him—something police are allowed to do—he may have established "lawful contact."

But let's suppose a cop can get nosy only if he has already intercepted someone for, say, a traffic violation. That's cold comfort for the innocent. Any officer who wants to make a stop can easily come up with some trivial transgression—improper lane change, going 1 mph over the speed limit, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

2nd Edit: However, a counterpoint that has been brought up is that, since Hispanics make up +25% of the AZ population, merely being Hispanic should never raise reasonable suspicion. It's an interesting argument but one I'm not ready to buy.

Thanks. FTR that's why I don't like this law, at least as far as I understand it. I think that there's a pretty decent argument that "lawful contact" means any contact not prohibited by law (i.e. unlawful), and that's basically anything short of force. So, suppose an officer walks up to a bunch of people standing on a street corner and say "hey fellas, how are you all today?" Is that a "legal contact"?

 

[videoguy505]

So, suppose an officer walks up to a bunch of people standing on a street corner and say "hey fellas, how are you all today?" Is that a "legal contact"?

So far as I know, it's currently unsettled by the courts and undefined by any law. So a court challenge would appear to be in order to answer this question.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Dear Lord. If we could ignore perry for a moment, do you have an opinion on what "for any lawful contact" means?

Yeah, it's the same thing as any other contact with law enforcement someone would have. No cop has the authority or power to walk to up to anyone for any reason without any form of reasonable suspicion of actual malice or probable cause and either detain that person by method of blocking a walkway or actually putting them in a police car and arresting them. The badge isn't a license to do anything, and this law doesn't grant that power.As for a specific definition, there probably isn't one but instead its based on Arizona common law.

The hangup here is what the definition of reasonable suspicion is as it pertains to the new law. I know you recognize that. You've stated it before in this thread.As much as we would like to take race out of the equation, it may be difficult when the basis of a reasonable suspicion is contact with a Spanish speaking brown guy hanging out at Home Depot. You know why? Because it IS reasonable to suspect that guy might be illegal. But that doesn't make it right.

 

[perry147]

Dear Lord. If we could ignore perry for a moment, do you have an opinion on what "for any lawful contact" means?

Yeah, it's the same thing as any other contact with law enforcement someone would have. No cop has the authority or power to walk to up to anyone for any reason without any form of reasonable suspicion of actual malice or probable cause and either detain that person by method of blocking a walkway or actually putting them in a police car and arresting them. The badge isn't a license to do anything, and this law doesn't grant that power.As for a specific definition, there probably isn't one but instead its based on Arizona common law.

The hangup here is what the definition of reasonable suspicion is as it pertains to the new law. I know you recognize that. You've stated it before in this thread.As much as we would like to take race out of the equation, it may be difficult when the basis of a reasonable suspicion is contact with a Spanish speaking brown guy hanging out at Home Depot. You know why? Because it IS reasonable to suspect that guy might be illegal. But that doesn't make it right.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[perry147]

Dear Lord. If we could ignore perry for a moment, do you have an opinion on what "for any lawful contact" means?

Yeah, it's the same thing as any other contact with law enforcement someone would have. No cop has the authority or power to walk to up to anyone for any reason without any form of reasonable suspicion of actual malice or probable cause and either detain that person by method of blocking a walkway or actually putting them in a police car and arresting them. The badge isn't a license to do anything, and this law doesn't grant that power.As for a specific definition, there probably isn't one but instead its based on Arizona common law.

So if these isn't a definition to the term - how do you understand how and to what degree it will be applied?

 

[Agent 47]

Jesus, what a horribly dangerous precedent.

Agreed. It sickens me to be a citizen of this country when people actually think there's nothing wrong with this.

Does it equally sicken you to be a citizen of a country that refuses to enforce its border laws effectively? I'll take my call off-air.

Some men are rapists. Should we as a country require all men to give DNA samples to prove that they're not a rapist?

I wish I could un-become a US Citizen so I can just stay here on government housing, eat off of food stamps, and never have to pay any taxes.Maybe I'll even start dealing drugs, because while it may technically be illegal, people should respect and admire my entrepreneurialism, and when it comes down to it, you gotta make money right? Who's with me!?

 

[timschochet]

I would like to discuss another aspect of this law which hasn't been much touched upon: the right of ordinary citizens to sue the police if they're not diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens. I would like the lawyer types to comment here. From a layman's POV (mine) it seems like this puts undue pressure on the police, invites litigation, and I don't know how this is going to be anything but a gigantic boondoggle which will end up costing taxpayers in Arizona oodles of money. But let's hear what you guys think.

 

[Christo]

I would like to discuss another aspect of this law which hasn't been much touched upon: the right of ordinary citizens to sue the police if they're not diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens. I would like the lawyer types to comment here. From a layman's POV (mine) it seems like this puts undue pressure on the police, invites litigation, and I don't know how this is going to be anything but a gigantic boondoggle which will end up costing taxpayers in Arizona oodles of money. But let's hear what you guys think.