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

[timschochet]

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.

Their logic is that the owner of the Diamondbacks is a big Republican contributor. I think it's a pretty weak argument, but that's what they're saying.

 

[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.

I don't get that at all.

You don't get that by allowing the suits (ignoring whether this is common) to force the policies and practices to be as hard line as possible is taking away the professional discretion of the policy makers in the police department (ignoring whether this is common)?

 

[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.

Their logic is that the owner of the Diamondbacks is a big Republican contributor. I think it's a pretty weak argument, but that's what they're saying.

I still don't get it. Protest at home games, maybe reduce the gate, sure. But to protest a road game won't affect the owner of the Diamondbacks at all.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

Why would you expect that those opposed to this law and don't reside in Arizona would go to Arizona to protest? Since it has been stated several times in this thread that Arizona is trying to force the federal discussion I don't see why those so opposed to want to protest wouldn't pick symbolic events like this.

 

[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.

You don't get that by allowing the suits (ignoring whether this is common) to force the policies and practices to be as hard line as possible is taking away the professional discretion of the policy makers in the police department (ignoring whether this is common)?

No, the more I read this law and discuss it the more I find it leaves a ton of discretion to the officers. And whether my opinion just stated is right or wrong, you can't simply ignore whether this is common in the sense that pretty much all agency level police policy is relatively similar in terms of how policy is formualted and enacted.

 

[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.

I don't get that at all.

You don't get that by allowing the suits (ignoring whether this is common) to force the policies and practices to be as hard line as possible is taking away the professional discretion of the policy makers in the police department (ignoring whether this is common)?

No, the more I read this law and discuss it the more I find it leaves a ton of discretion to the officers. And whether my opinion just stated is right or wrong, you can't simply ignore whether this is common in the sense that pretty much all agency level police policy is relatively similar in terms of how policy is formualted and enacted.

I'm not ignoring it other than to continue the discussion that predated that point. If you go back TheCommish said something along the lines that he was opposed to police policy being created by the public. So whether or not this is common doesn't really help his point.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

No, the more I read this law and discuss it the more I find it leaves a ton of discretion to the officers.

And the more I read your post the more I lean that the points that we are discussing is just grandstanding, and some of your "well crafted legislation" points that aren't getting much discussion are the real devils in the details. Gotta run.

 

[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.

Why would you expect that those opposed to this law and don't reside in Arizona would go to Arizona to protest? Since it has been stated several times in this thread that Arizona is trying to force the federal discussion I don't see why those so opposed to want to protest wouldn't pick symbolic events like this.

Hey, they can knock themselves out, I guess, if that's what they want to do. To me, it just feels like it would have about the same affect as organizing a march in Washington DC to protest a new law in France.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm not ignoring it other than to continue the discussion that predated that point. If you go back TheCommish said something along the lines that he was opposed to police policy being created by the public. So whether or not this is common doesn't really help his point.

Well, in a sense it is created by the public because common law has a huge bearing on police policy. You only need look at the Rules of Evidence to figure that out.

 

[Christo]

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.

You don't get that by allowing the suits (ignoring whether this is common) to force the policies and practices to be as hard line as possible is taking away the professional discretion of the policy makers in the police department (ignoring whether this is common)?

You don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact.

 

[Neofight]

Interesting.

 

[Neofight]

Terrorist attacks in AZ.

"You know Arizona has been under terrorist attacks, if you will, with all of this illegal immigration that has been taking place on our very, very porous border," Brewer said.

Color me confused, but I was under the impression that the Republicans thought terrorism was a matter to be dealt with militarily. Shouldn't these illegal immigrant "terrorists" be shipped to Guantanamo; shouldn't the police have nothing to do with this but instead the armed forces be called in, Posse Comitatus be damned?Which is it, Jan?

 

[Christo]

Terrorist attacks in AZ.

"You know Arizona has been under terrorist attacks, if you will, with all of this illegal immigration that has been taking place on our very, very porous border," Brewer said.

Color me confused, but I was under the impression that the Republicans thought terrorism was a matter to be dealt with militarily. Shouldn't these illegal immigrant "terrorists" be shipped to Guantanamo; shouldn't the police have nothing to do with this but instead the armed forces be called in, Posse Comitatus be damned?Which is it, Jan?

They asked the Feds for help. The Feds apparently have better things to do. When the cavalry isn't coming the settlers have to circle the wagons and defend themselves.

 

[Neofight]

Terrorist attacks in AZ.

"You know Arizona has been under terrorist attacks, if you will, with all of this illegal immigration that has been taking place on our very, very porous border," Brewer said.

Color me confused, but I was under the impression that the Republicans thought terrorism was a matter to be dealt with militarily. Shouldn't these illegal immigrant "terrorists" be shipped to Guantanamo; shouldn't the police have nothing to do with this but instead the armed forces be called in, Posse Comitatus be damned?Which is it, Jan?

They asked the Feds for help. The Feds apparently have better things to do. When the cavalry isn't coming the settlers have to circle the wagons and defend themselves.

Yee-haw!Well said, barrister.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The timing of this is uncanny.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizon...ty.shot/?hpt=T1

A sheriff's deputy in central Arizona was shot Friday afternoon by an alleged illegal immigrant, authorities said.

The shooting comes amid a national debate over Arizona's tough new immigration law that allows police to demand proof of legal residency. Arizona lawmakers say the law is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing more than 450,000 illegal immigrants to move into the state.

The Pinal County deputy, who was not immediately identified, contacted authorities after being wounded in the desert, saying he had been shot by an illegal immigrant with an AK-47, said Lt. Tammy Villar, a sheriff's spokeswoman.

At one point, the deputy lost radio contact with authorities, leading to a search by foot and by air for him and the shooter, according to CNN affiliate KNXV. Video from the scene shows that the deputy was located while sitting in desert brush, surrounded by cactus. He was able to walk to a helicopter that airlifted him to a hospital.

 

[Agent 47]

The timing of this is uncanny.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizon...ty.shot/?hpt=T1

A sheriff's deputy in central Arizona was shot Friday afternoon by an alleged illegal immigrant, authorities said.

The shooting comes amid a national debate over Arizona's tough new immigration law that allows police to demand proof of legal residency. Arizona lawmakers say the law is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing more than 450,000 illegal immigrants to move into the state.

The Pinal County deputy, who was not immediately identified, contacted authorities after being wounded in the desert, saying he had been shot by an illegal immigrant with an AK-47, said Lt. Tammy Villar, a sheriff's spokeswoman.

At one point, the deputy lost radio contact with authorities, leading to a search by foot and by air for him and the shooter, according to CNN affiliate KNXV. Video from the scene shows that the deputy was located while sitting in desert brush, surrounded by cactus. He was able to walk to a helicopter that airlifted him to a hospital.

Terrorist.

 

[LHUCKS]

The timing of this is uncanny.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizon...ty.shot/?hpt=T1

A sheriff's deputy in central Arizona was shot Friday afternoon by an alleged illegal immigrant, authorities said.

The shooting comes amid a national debate over Arizona's tough new immigration law that allows police to demand proof of legal residency. Arizona lawmakers say the law is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing more than 450,000 illegal immigrants to move into the state.

The Pinal County deputy, who was not immediately identified, contacted authorities after being wounded in the desert, saying he had been shot by an illegal immigrant with an AK-47, said Lt. Tammy Villar, a sheriff's spokeswoman.

At one point, the deputy lost radio contact with authorities, leading to a search by foot and by air for him and the shooter, according to CNN affiliate KNXV. Video from the scene shows that the deputy was located while sitting in desert brush, surrounded by cactus. He was able to walk to a helicopter that airlifted him to a hospital.

Yet some people in this thread were questioning whether or not this stuff even happens in AZ...#### happens on a regular basis.

There is a reason why 90% of non-hispanics support the law, and its not because they're racist.

 

[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.

Governor signed these changes late today.

 

[LHUCKS]

Terrorist attacks in AZ.

"You know Arizona has been under terrorist attacks, if you will, with all of this illegal immigration that has been taking place on our very, very porous border," Brewer said.

Color me confused, but I was under the impression that the Republicans thought terrorism was a matter to be dealt with militarily. Shouldn't these illegal immigrant "terrorists" be shipped to Guantanamo; shouldn't the police have nothing to do with this but instead the armed forces be called in, Posse Comitatus be damned?Which is it, Jan?

They asked the Feds for help. The Feds apparently have better things to do. When the cavalry isn't coming the settlers have to circle the wagons and defend themselves.

 

[Neofight]

Terrorist attacks in AZ.

"You know Arizona has been under terrorist attacks, if you will, with all of this illegal immigration that has been taking place on our very, very porous border," Brewer said.

Color me confused, but I was under the impression that the Republicans thought terrorism was a matter to be dealt with militarily. Shouldn't these illegal immigrant "terrorists" be shipped to Guantanamo; shouldn't the police have nothing to do with this but instead the armed forces be called in, Posse Comitatus be damned?Which is it, Jan?

They asked the Feds for help. The Feds apparently have better things to do. When the cavalry isn't coming the settlers have to circle the wagons and defend themselves.

This must have made Christo's night.

 

[snitwitch]

Driving without a birth certificate? That's an arrestin'.

 

[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.

I don't get that at all.

You don't get that by allowing the suits (ignoring whether this is common) to force the policies and practices to be as hard line as possible is taking away the professional discretion of the policy makers in the police department (ignoring whether this is common)?

You don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact.

Can I file suit an officer and his department for not pursuing a marijuana charge to the fullest extent of federal law? How about a gun law? And by file suit I don't mean just waste everyone's time in filling out paperwork, but in wasting everyone's time in an actual trial?Since this language is common, can one of you lawyers point to several similar sections in other laws? I don't care which state.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well, in a sense it is created by the public because common law has a huge bearing on police policy. You only need look at the Rules of Evidence to figure that out.

But again that doesn't help TheCommish. The "ignoring your points" were in response to what started here-

Do you not think there is a difference between a police officer who refuses to apply the law because of his personal choosing and a police officer who can't enforce the law because his superiors are telling him he's not allowed?

In layman's terms, that's what Christo is saying....I agree with him and YF.

Do you not think there is a difference between a police officer who aggressively applies the law because of his personal choosing and a police officer who aggressively enforces the law because his superiors are telling him he must? And are you OK with those "superiors" being ordinary citizens with little to no idea about the issues of the police force suing the police force, or town, or county, or whatever?

There is a difference and no I am not ok with citizens telling the police how to do their jobs. The police chief and his staff should be giving orders to the policemen. Not sure a police officer would take direction from me over his superior though

The fact that you assert this is common, doesn't change that the point of this law is for ordinary citizens through their legislators and possibly through the courts dictate only one allowable policy. And by openly ignoring your point in my replies to this discussion thread, doesn't mean I'm ignoring your points overall nor am I challenging them. Despite the liberal bashing nonsense in your post, and your support for the wrong ideas I trust you extensive background information on these matters.

 

[Christo]

You don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact.

Can I file suit an officer and his department for not pursuing a marijuana charge to the fullest extent of federal law? How about a gun law? And by file suit I don't mean just waste everyone's time in filling out paperwork, but in wasting everyone's time in an actual trial?Since this language is common, can one of you lawyers point to several similar sections in other laws? I don't care which state.

What about making it past a motion to strike for failure to state a cause of action but not past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense? Or how about making it past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense but not past a motion for summary judgment?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact.

Can I file suit an officer and his department for not pursuing a marijuana charge to the fullest extent of federal law? How about a gun law? And by file suit I don't mean just waste everyone's time in filling out paperwork, but in wasting everyone's time in an actual trial?Since this language is common, can one of you lawyers point to several similar sections in other laws? I don't care which state.

What about making it past a motion to strike for failure to state a cause of action but not past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense? Or how about making it past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense but not past a motion for summary judgment?

So you can't?

 

[Neofight]

You don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact.

Can I file suit an officer and his department for not pursuing a marijuana charge to the fullest extent of federal law? How about a gun law? And by file suit I don't mean just waste everyone's time in filling out paperwork, but in wasting everyone's time in an actual trial?Since this language is common, can one of you lawyers point to several similar sections in other laws? I don't care which state.

What about making it past a motion to strike for failure to state a cause of action but not past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense? Or how about making it past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense but not past a motion for summary judgment?

Chris, can you PM me about that little money making venture I proposed a few pages back? I've got 12 members of my family on board and awaiting directions. We need your expertise.Oh yeah, and that :rollingonhisbackbellylaughinsmileydude:- He's a tell.

 

[BoulderBob]

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.

Many businesses, corporations, companies, etc... DO advertise in Mexico...but they don't want to send them back, well, not untill they have given those fat cats(who should be facing significant media finger-waving, and penalties from the government) 5-10 years of hard work...then those "powers that be" will say "screw you very much" and send them back, but the powers that be are in bed with those that WANT these immigrants here illegaly. Cheap labor, pretty much what capitalism is all about...

 

[Christo]

You don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact.

Can I file suit an officer and his department for not pursuing a marijuana charge to the fullest extent of federal law? How about a gun law? And by file suit I don't mean just waste everyone's time in filling out paperwork, but in wasting everyone's time in an actual trial?Since this language is common, can one of you lawyers point to several similar sections in other laws? I don't care which state.

What about making it past a motion to strike for failure to state a cause of action but not past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense? Or how about making it past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense but not past a motion for summary judgment?

So you can't?

Jesus christ, you don't need a statute to file any of the lawsuits you described. WTF is your problem?

 

[Neofight]

You don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact.

Can I file suit an officer and his department for not pursuing a marijuana charge to the fullest extent of federal law? How about a gun law? And by file suit I don't mean just waste everyone's time in filling out paperwork, but in wasting everyone's time in an actual trial?Since this language is common, can one of you lawyers point to several similar sections in other laws? I don't care which state.

What about making it past a motion to strike for failure to state a cause of action but not past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense? Or how about making it past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense but not past a motion for summary judgment?

So you can't?

Jesus christ, you don't need a statute to file any of the lawsuits you described. WTF is your problem?

Say is that, like, legalese?

 

[Christo]

Say is that, like, legalese?

Legalese failed with this guy pages ago. I'm trying to find a level he might understand.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can I file suit an officer and his department for not pursuing a marijuana charge to the fullest extent of federal law? How about a gun law? And by file suit I don't mean just waste everyone's time in filling out paperwork, but in wasting everyone's time in an actual trial?Since this language is common, can one of you lawyers point to several similar sections in other laws? I don't care which state.

What about making it past a motion to strike for failure to state a cause of action but not past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense? Or how about making it past a motion to dismiss based upon an affirmative defense but not past a motion for summary judgment?

So you can't?

Jesus christ, you don't need a statute to file any of the lawsuits you described. WTF is your problem?

So why is there the specific language in this law that allows such lawsuits? If you believe you have answered this question then point it out.

 

[timschochet]

Jesus christ, you don't need a statute to file any of the lawsuits you described. WTF is your problem?

Bottomfeeder Sports and I have the same question. You keep asserting that this clause about bringing lawsuits in the new law is meaningless because people can bring lawsuits anyway. So our question is, why is it in the law? I'm no lawyer, but I suspect its in there to try and intimidate reluctant police to pursue illegal immigrants. I think everybody realizes this, except that you seem to be pretending that this is no problem. To me, its a problem.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Jesus christ, you don't need a statute to file any of the lawsuits you described. WTF is your problem?

Bottomfeeder Sports and I have the same question. You keep asserting that this clause about bringing lawsuits in the new law is meaningless because people can bring lawsuits anyway. So our question is, why is it in the law? I'm no lawyer, but I suspect its in there to try and intimidate reluctant police to pursue illegal immigrants. I think everybody realizes this, except that you seem to be pretending that this is no problem. To me, its a problem.

And my non lawyer gut instinct is that this language is there to lower the hurdle in keeping these cases from being thrown out. Christo keeps claiming (seemingly) that these cases don't have a chance of getting very far, in which case I ask why is the language there to encourage the public to waste everyone's time to begin with? Whether Christo is correct or not in these points, I still don't see how this is there for any reason other than to force the most hard line policies possible. ETA: Or, if Y23K is correct that this is "toothless" it is just there to grandstand, to pander to the masses.

 

[Christo]

Jesus christ, you don't need a statute to file any of the lawsuits you described. WTF is your problem?

Bottomfeeder Sports and I have the same question. You keep asserting that this clause about bringing lawsuits in the new law is meaningless because people can bring lawsuits anyway. So our question is, why is it in the law? I'm no lawyer, but I suspect its in there to try and intimidate reluctant police to pursue illegal immigrants. I think everybody realizes this, except that you seem to be pretending that this is no problem. To me, its a problem.

It provides monetary punishment. A mandamus action would, at most, allow the plaintiff to recover attorney's fees.

 

[Christo]

Jesus christ, you don't need a statute to file any of the lawsuits you described. WTF is your problem?

Bottomfeeder Sports and I have the same question. You keep asserting that this clause about bringing lawsuits in the new law is meaningless because people can bring lawsuits anyway. So our question is, why is it in the law? I'm no lawyer, but I suspect its in there to try and intimidate reluctant police to pursue illegal immigrants. I think everybody realizes this, except that you seem to be pretending that this is no problem. To me, its a problem.

And my non lawyer gut instinct is that this language is there to lower the hurdle in keeping these cases from being thrown out. Christo keeps claiming (seemingly) that these cases don't have a chance of getting very far, in which case I ask why is the language there to encourage the public to waste everyone's time to begin with?

What cases? And why would a lawsuit filed to get the police to do their jobs be a waste of time?

Whether Christo is correct or not in these points, I still don't see how this is there for any reason other than to force the most hard line policies possible. ETA: Or, if Y23K is correct that this is "toothless" it is just there to grandstand, to pander to the masses.

It's there to keep whole police/sheriff's departments from ignoring the law because of politics not to make sure that street cops give superhuman efforts to catch each and every illegal immigrant they come in contact with.

 

[JJP]

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.

They were talking about this on a Chicago sports radio station. Like one of them said, there is no group anywhere more unaware of world events, than major league baseball players. Very idiotic protest. One would think it couldn't get any dumber.But it did. Protests calling for a boycott of the Arizona Ice Tea company.......only problem is the company is based in Brooklyn. ROLMFAO

 

[Spanky267]

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.

They were talking about this on a Chicago sports radio station. Like one of them said, there is no group anywhere more unaware of world events, than major league baseball players. Very idiotic protest. One would think it couldn't get any dumber.But it did. Protests calling for a boycott of the Arizona Ice Tea company.......only problem is the company is based in Brooklyn. ROLMFAO

I think they are going to boycott Arizona jeans next. Arizona JeansI am sure the chinese are very worried.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And my non lawyer gut instinct is that this language is there to lower the hurdle in keeping these cases from being thrown out. Christo keeps claiming (seemingly) that these cases don't have a chance of getting very far, in which case I ask why is the language there to encourage the public to waste everyone's time to begin with?

What cases? And why would a lawsuit filed to get the police to do their jobs be a waste of time?

Whether Christo is correct or not in these points, I still don't see how this is there for any reason other than to force the most hard line policies possible. ETA: Or, if Y23K is correct that this is "toothless" it is just there to grandstand, to pander to the masses.

It's there to keep whole police/sheriff's departments from ignoring the law because of politics not to make sure that street cops give superhuman efforts to catch each and every illegal immigrant they come in contact with.

I guess it is best to start over with what I have been concerned about. Let me start with the law (I think) before Friday's changes. The changes on Friday will of course possibly make some of this academic as we are talking about how things were for a few days and not how they are, but those changes were not part of this discussion. I have been using the text as provided in this link, and have been concentrating on section 2.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by12 adding article 8, to read:13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of15 immigration laws; indemnification16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE18 ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT19 PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL40 IDENTIFICATION.41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.1 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS2 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM3 IMPRISONMENT OR ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY MONETARY OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED,4 THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES5 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED.6 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY7 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION IS8 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO9 A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO10 FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT11 AGENCY. A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL OBTAIN JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE12 SECURELY TRANSPORTING AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES13 TO A POINT OF TRANSFER THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.14 E. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS15 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS16 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,17 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS,18 LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY19 OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL20 PURPOSES:21 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE22 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS23 STATE.24 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF25 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL26 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.27 3. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN28 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER29 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.30 4. PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373 AND 8 UNITED STATES31 CODE SECTION 1644.32 F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH AND SHALL33 NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH THE REAL ID ACT OF 200534 (P.L. 109-13, DIVISION B; 119 STAT. 302), INCLUDING THE USE OF A RADIO35 FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION CHIP.36 G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION37 IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A38 COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS39 OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT40 OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL41 LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS42 SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT43 LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR44 EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION45 PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.1 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G2 OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR3 DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION4 FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.5 I. THE COURT MAY AWARD COURT COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO ANY6 PERSON OR ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR7 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT PREVAILS BY AN ADJUDICATION ON8 THE MERITS IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.9 J. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO10 HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW11 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING12 ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR13 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A14 DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW15 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.16 K. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH17 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL18 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES19 CITIZENS.Now for the most part I was following along in this thread trying to wrap my thoughts around whether I agree with this law or not, whether it actually addresses a problem, etc., etc. I was happily on the sidelines when the discussion was about racism and the gestapo because they offered little to my understanding. I threw out a thought about trusting officers discretion that didn't really go anywhere for me to formulate an opinion. I'm not certain that I get Y23F's statement that he "could argue it actually gives them [police] more [discretion]and relies more on the beat walking on the ground police officer and his instincts and knowledge of his territory" as it seems counterintuitive, but I don't have any good place to try to take that conversation.While I was an occasional participant in this conversation about how this pieces together to allow citizens to sue police officers from around page 15 or so until page 22, when I asked in response to this reply whether the police department was an agency, and a police officer was an official? I then admittedly lost track of the actual law and posted based on a summary that seemed to only offer a police officer protection when he went too far, as opposed to what the law really states. The next morning I started replying to TheCommish that the point of this law seems to be to have ordinary citizens force the strictest possible policies. And then asked "Why not?" when Y23F stated "The language of the law does not back up your [Timmy's] seeming assertion that joe citizen can sue joe cop." And the answer has been because it would get tossed out based on facts. Some asserted that this was already answered. You point to section J and show that the point is to "allows citizens to sue an 'official or agency.' But the indemnification provision protects 'officers'." But while the "indemnification provision protects" the individual officer from financial loss as long as they were appropriately following the policies, procedures, and accepted practices of their departments it doesn't keep them from facing these suits, does it? The cases are going to be thrown out based on facts, with the only fact being offered being section J, which makes some sense we are talking about how section G allows suits in the general sense, not any specific case. But for the same reason that Section J being the only fact being offered makes sense, all the replies about these cases based on this law being tossed out in various stages of the case being thrown out "due to the facts of the case" pointless.

Now I more or less willing to take Y23F's word for it that "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." That the language of this law is nothing special. But you jump back in either declaring all of these lawsuits would be meritless or offer a useless point on how cases without merit are tossed out. So giving you the benefit of doubt that you actually had a point, I asked "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?" Your next reply to a different post was "don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact." Which is a repeat of Y23F's answer, so I asked for examples is similar laws. Where you took listing all the places that a meritless case could be thrown out as meaningful reply and reasserted that Section G wasn't needed to sue the police department and/or officer. I section G wasn't needed then is it there? Which gets us here.

So "What cases?" The cases allowed, whether necessary or not by Section G.

And why would a lawsuit filed to get the police to do their jobs be a waste of time? Because my laymen's reading of the section is that this is to force that the executive branch of Arizona's government to always use Section A as the policy and to allow ordinary citizens to use the courts to force the actual "practices" to always be a strict as possible. In other words the policy experts, not just those in the police force have no wiggle room to create the actual procedures to fully "do their jobs". For the most part "doing their jobs" only minimally includes caring about immigration status, yet this law forces immigration status to always be near the top of the priorities list.

It's there to keep whole police/sheriff's departments from ignoring the law because of politics not to make sure that street cops give superhuman efforts to catch each and every illegal immigrant they come in contact with. But you seem to arguing that section J is there to prevent the cases merely being about suing individual officers. I see it being there to encourage individuals to sue individual officers to establish "the practices" that are in violation of this law.

There was a short discussion of a "practice" is in a legal sense. I don't think there was a good answer. So I am simply defining it from my own experience. A policy is a statement of principle. As mentioned all of the policies are going to state that such and such agency will be charged with "ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW." They will carefully craft procedures that define how this policy will be met. And then in the field accepted practices will develop that may or may not conform to the stated policy and procedures. Absent a better definition, I have to assume that this is why "or practice" is there.

So piecing it together to me Section G is there to remove any discretion from the executive branch in interpreting Section A by giving the oversight responsibilities to the average citizen. Section B further narrowly defines how a police officer can perform his job duties and how this can be written into "policies" and procedures. Section J seems to allow the "practices" of individual officers be challenged for the purposes of forcing police departments to fully comply with Sections B (and A). That is how individual officers are observed to perform their jobs will be the basis of challenging the "practices" of the departments. That the end result of this is that the courts will be used to force the most "draconian" version of enforcement possible. Now I'm willing to be shown that this is how it works in general, and that this law is nothing new and hardly warrants the previous sentence's hyperbole. But your contentions that you don't need this in the statute for this to be true doesn't seem to support this view.

Now I didn't take the time to create this post in order to continue a pissing contests. I'm hoping (but have no right to expect) that I can benefit from the expertise that you, Y23F, Tobias, even Woz can offer to shape how the above paragraph is incorrect. Except for that this might be just common boiler plate language, I don't think this has been done. Maybe that is because we have largely been talking past one another, if so I'm sorry for my inabilities to be clear enough that this wasn't the case.

 

[Yenrub]

The timing of this is uncanny.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizon...ty.shot/?hpt=T1

A sheriff's deputy in central Arizona was shot Friday afternoon by an alleged illegal immigrant, authorities said.

The shooting comes amid a national debate over Arizona's tough new immigration law that allows police to demand proof of legal residency. Arizona lawmakers say the law is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing more than 450,000 illegal immigrants to move into the state.

The Pinal County deputy, who was not immediately identified, contacted authorities after being wounded in the desert, saying he had been shot by an illegal immigrant with an AK-47, said Lt. Tammy Villar, a sheriff's spokeswoman.

At one point, the deputy lost radio contact with authorities, leading to a search by foot and by air for him and the shooter, according to CNN affiliate KNXV. Video from the scene shows that the deputy was located while sitting in desert brush, surrounded by cactus. He was able to walk to a helicopter that airlifted him to a hospital.

Yet some people in this thread were questioning whether or not this stuff even happens in AZ...#### happens on a regular basis.

There is a reason why 90% of non-hispanics support the law, and its not because they're racist.

Do you think this new law is going to decrease the amount of drug trafficking related crimes?

 

[timschochet]

Do you think this new law is going to decrease the amount of drug trafficking related crimes?

He has stated several times that he does. I think this is a delusional attitude myself, but we'll see.

 

[Neofight]

Some facts about violence on AZ border towns.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down.

Apparently Governor Brewer was overstating the impact of these "terrorist attacks."
!.

 

[Neofight]

For LHUCKS:

We have already begun to feel an impact from SB1070. The families of a number of out-of-state students (to date all of them honors students) have told us that they are changing their plans and will be sending their children to universities in other states. This should sadden anyone who cares about attracting the best and brightest students to Arizona.

 

[Bronco Billy]

For LHUCKS:

We have already begun to feel an impact from SB1070. The families of a number of out-of-state students (to date all of them honors students) have told us that they are changing their plans and will be sending their children to universities in other states. This should sadden anyone who cares about attracting the best and brightest students to Arizona.

at people who think this kind of crap makes any kind of impact but will quote it like crazy. You aren't going to hear a single story from the lame stream media about the benefits to Arizona from people who are glad to see someone - anyone - make a stand in regard to illegals. There's a reason 70% of Arizonans support this law, the governor's positive ratings jumped 16%, and other states are looking at enacting similar laws.OOOhhhh - Denver Public Schools condemns the "racist" law and refuses to send any contigents of students to Arizona for educational matters. Hell - that's probably because half the DPS students visiting AZ would be picked up under the constraints of the law.

 

[Neofight]

For LHUCKS:

We have already begun to feel an impact from SB1070. The families of a number of out-of-state students (to date all of them honors students) have told us that they are changing their plans and will be sending their children to universities in other states. This should sadden anyone who cares about attracting the best and brightest students to Arizona.

at people who think this kind of crap makes any kind of impact but will quote it like crazy. You aren't going to hear a single story from the lame stream media about the benefits to Arizona from people who are glad to see someone - anyone - make a stand in regard to illegals. There's a reason 70% of Arizonans support this law, the governor's positive ratings jumped 16%.

My guess is the number of people that support this law has a strong correlation with the number watching FOX News or other hyperbolic media. There was also a reason why a vast majority of people supported invading Iraq; political will plus a compliant media will convert huge numbers of people. How do those numbers look now, in light of the facts?Now go review the video of Governor Brewer in the post above the one you quoted, look at the facts in the AZ Republic article (not a left leaning newspaper by any stretch) and realize that this is nothing more than political gamesmanship. Report back.

 

[timschochet]

For LHUCKS:

We have already begun to feel an impact from SB1070. The families of a number of out-of-state students (to date all of them honors students) have told us that they are changing their plans and will be sending their children to universities in other states. This should sadden anyone who cares about attracting the best and brightest students to Arizona.

at people who think this kind of crap makes any kind of impact but will quote it like crazy. You aren't going to hear a single story from the lame stream media about the benefits to Arizona from people who are glad to see someone - anyone - make a stand in regard to illegals. There's a reason 70% of Arizonans support this law, the governor's positive ratings jumped 16%, and other states are looking at enacting similar laws.OOOhhhh - Denver Public Schools condemns the "racist" law and refuses to send any contigents of students to Arizona for educational matters. Hell - that's probably because half the DPS students visiting AZ would be picked up under the constraints of the law.

What specific benefits to Arizona are you talking about? Obviously, you're correct that most Arizona residents are unified in supporting this. But how does that benefit Arizona?

 

[Christo]

And my non lawyer gut instinct is that this language is there to lower the hurdle in keeping these cases from being thrown out. Christo keeps claiming (seemingly) that these cases don't have a chance of getting very far, in which case I ask why is the language there to encourage the public to waste everyone's time to begin with?

What cases? And why would a lawsuit filed to get the police to do their jobs be a waste of time?

Whether Christo is correct or not in these points, I still don't see how this is there for any reason other than to force the most hard line policies possible. ETA: Or, if Y23K is correct that this is "toothless" it is just there to grandstand, to pander to the masses.

It's there to keep whole police/sheriff's departments from ignoring the law because of politics not to make sure that street cops give superhuman efforts to catch each and every illegal immigrant they come in contact with.

I guess it is best to start over with what I have been concerned about. Let me start with the law (I think) before Friday's changes. The changes on Friday will of course possibly make some of this academic as we are talking about how things were for a few days and not how they are, but those changes were not part of this discussion. I have been using the text as provided in this link, and have been concentrating on section 2.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by12 adding article 8, to read:13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of15 immigration laws; indemnification16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE18 ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT19 PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL40 IDENTIFICATION.41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.1 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS2 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM3 IMPRISONMENT OR ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY MONETARY OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED,4 THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES5 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED.6 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY7 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION IS8 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO9 A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO10 FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT11 AGENCY. A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL OBTAIN JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE12 SECURELY TRANSPORTING AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES13 TO A POINT OF TRANSFER THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.14 E. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS15 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS16 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,17 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS,18 LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY19 OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL20 PURPOSES:21 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE22 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS23 STATE.24 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF25 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL26 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.27 3. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN28 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER29 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.30 4. PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373 AND 8 UNITED STATES31 CODE SECTION 1644.32 F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH AND SHALL33 NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH THE REAL ID ACT OF 200534 (P.L. 109-13, DIVISION B; 119 STAT. 302), INCLUDING THE USE OF A RADIO35 FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION CHIP.36 G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION37 IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A38 COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS39 OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT40 OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL41 LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS42 SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT43 LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR44 EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION45 PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.1 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G2 OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR3 DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION4 FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.5 I. THE COURT MAY AWARD COURT COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO ANY6 PERSON OR ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR7 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT PREVAILS BY AN ADJUDICATION ON8 THE MERITS IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.9 J. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO10 HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW11 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING12 ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR13 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A14 DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW15 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.16 K. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH17 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL18 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES19 CITIZENS.Now for the most part I was following along in this thread trying to wrap my thoughts around whether I agree with this law or not, whether it actually addresses a problem, etc., etc. I was happily on the sidelines when the discussion was about racism and the gestapo because they offered little to my understanding. I threw out a thought about trusting officers discretion that didn't really go anywhere for me to formulate an opinion. I'm not certain that I get Y23F's statement that he "could argue it actually gives them [police] more [discretion]and relies more on the beat walking on the ground police officer and his instincts and knowledge of his territory" as it seems counterintuitive, but I don't have any good place to try to take that conversation.While I was an occasional participant in this conversation about how this pieces together to allow citizens to sue police officers from around page 15 or so until page 22, when I asked in response to this reply whether the police department was an agency, and a police officer was an official? I then admittedly lost track of the actual law and posted based on a summary that seemed to only offer a police officer protection when he went too far, as opposed to what the law really states. The next morning I started replying to TheCommish that the point of this law seems to be to have ordinary citizens force the strictest possible policies. And then asked "Why not?" when Y23F stated "The language of the law does not back up your [Timmy's] seeming assertion that joe citizen can sue joe cop." And the answer has been because it would get tossed out based on facts. Some asserted that this was already answered. You point to section J and show that the point is to "allows citizens to sue an 'official or agency.' But the indemnification provision protects 'officers'." But while the "indemnification provision protects" the individual officer from financial loss as long as they were appropriately following the policies, procedures, and accepted practices of their departments it doesn't keep them from facing these suits, does it? The cases are going to be thrown out based on facts, with the only fact being offered being section J, which makes some sense we are talking about how section G allows suits in the general sense, not any specific case. But for the same reason that Section J being the only fact being offered makes sense, all the replies about these cases based on this law being tossed out in various stages of the case being thrown out "due to the facts of the case" pointless.

Now I more or less willing to take Y23F's word for it that "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." That the language of this law is nothing special. But you jump back in either declaring all of these lawsuits would be meritless or offer a useless point on how cases without merit are tossed out. So giving you the benefit of doubt that you actually had a point, I asked "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?" Your next reply to a different post was "don't seem to understand that police officers can already be sued for their action and/or inaction. This law does nothing to change that fact." Which is a repeat of Y23F's answer, so I asked for examples is similar laws. Where you took listing all the places that a meritless case could be thrown out as meaningful reply and reasserted that Section G wasn't needed to sue the police department and/or officer. I section G wasn't needed then is it there? Which gets us here.

So "What cases?" The cases allowed, whether necessary or not by Section G.

And why would a lawsuit filed to get the police to do their jobs be a waste of time? Because my laymen's reading of the section is that this is to force that the executive branch of Arizona's government to always use Section A as the policy and to allow ordinary citizens to use the courts to force the actual "practices" to always be a strict as possible. In other words the policy experts, not just those in the police force have no wiggle room to create the actual procedures to fully "do their jobs". For the most part "doing their jobs" only minimally includes caring about immigration status, yet this law forces immigration status to always be near the top of the priorities list.

It's there to keep whole police/sheriff's departments from ignoring the law because of politics not to make sure that street cops give superhuman efforts to catch each and every illegal immigrant they come in contact with. But you seem to arguing that section J is there to prevent the cases merely being about suing individual officers. I see it being there to encourage individuals to sue individual officers to establish "the practices" that are in violation of this law.

There was a short discussion of a "practice" is in a legal sense. I don't think there was a good answer. So I am simply defining it from my own experience. A policy is a statement of principle. As mentioned all of the policies are going to state that such and such agency will be charged with "ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW." They will carefully craft procedures that define how this policy will be met. And then in the field accepted practices will develop that may or may not conform to the stated policy and procedures. Absent a better definition, I have to assume that this is why "or practice" is there.

So piecing it together to me Section G is there to remove any discretion from the executive branch in interpreting Section A by giving the oversight responsibilities to the average citizen. Section B further narrowly defines how a police officer can perform his job duties and how this can be written into "policies" and procedures. Section J seems to allow the "practices" of individual officers be challenged for the purposes of forcing police departments to fully comply with Sections B (and A). That is how individual officers are observed to perform their jobs will be the basis of challenging the "practices" of the departments. That the end result of this is that the courts will be used to force the most "draconian" version of enforcement possible. Now I'm willing to be shown that this is how it works in general, and that this law is nothing new and hardly warrants the previous sentence's hyperbole. But your contentions that you don't need this in the statute for this to be true doesn't seem to support this view.

Now I didn't take the time to create this post in order to continue a pissing contests. I'm hoping (but have no right to expect) that I can benefit from the expertise that you, Y23F, Tobias, even Woz can offer to shape how the above paragraph is incorrect. Except for that this might be just common boiler plate language, I don't think this has been done. Maybe that is because we have largely been talking past one another, if so I'm sorry for my inabilities to be clear enough that this wasn't the case.

No. Why do you keep saying this? It says nothing about discretion.

 

[Christo]

For those of you who think this puts citizens in control of their police forces, can you describe for us a factual scenario that supports your belief?

 

[JJP]

For LHUCKS:

We have already begun to feel an impact from SB1070. The families of a number of out-of-state students (to date all of them honors students) have told us that they are changing their plans and will be sending their children to universities in other states. This should sadden anyone who cares about attracting the best and brightest students to Arizona.

at people who think this kind of crap makes any kind of impact but will quote it like crazy. You aren't going to hear a single story from the lame stream media about the benefits to Arizona from people who are glad to see someone - anyone - make a stand in regard to illegals. There's a reason 70% of Arizonans support this law, the governor's positive ratings jumped 16%.

My guess is the number of people that support this law has a strong correlation with the number watching FOX News or other hyperbolic media. There was also a reason why a vast majority of people supported invading Iraq; political will plus a compliant media will convert huge numbers of people. How do those numbers look now, in light of the facts?Now go review the video of Governor Brewer in the post above the one you quoted, look at the facts in the AZ Republic article (not a left leaning newspaper by any stretch) and realize that this is nothing more than political gamesmanship. Report back.

When in doubt, blame Fox News. They are responsible for all that is evil. And always try and tie the Iraq War to something completely irrelevant. I'm only surprised you didn't bring George Bush into this.

 

[JJP]

For those of you who think this puts citizens in control of their police forces, can you describe for us a factual scenario that supports your belief?

Can you supply a reason to not support this law? If you are so scared of profiling, the fact is police must have "probable cause" to pull someone over.If someone wants to immigrate here, go thru the proper procedures. By circumventing them, they are showing no respect for our laws. We already know illegal immigrants kill over 2,000 people on American soil annually and have more than 250,000 in US jails. How could anyone US citizen be against this?

 

[timschochet]

I'm only surprised you didn't bring George Bush into this.

Though I haven't heard any comments by ex-President Bush, I strongly supect he is appalled by this new law.