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

[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?

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?

Did you mean to respond to my post?

 

[Zow]

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.

Well yeah, non-hispanic will not be affected at all by the law and will only benefit. But again, that doesn't mean it is constitutional.

 

[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.

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.

Not that I have much doubt, but why is this law irrelevant? George Bush would have winced at this law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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?

Sure, community X has decided that the drug gangs and their turf wars in their community is the greatest threat to peace. That the ability to build trust in the community supersedes concerns about immigration status. Seems to me that the ability for this community to set its priorities would be entirely dependent on whether or not they could claim that the "investigation of drug gangs" is ongoing, and to question immigration status would hamper that investigation. Does the community win against these suits? How bad must these turf wars be to prevail? Does it matter?

 

[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?

Sure, community X has decided that the drug gangs and their turf wars in their community is the greatest threat to peace. That the ability to build trust in the community supersedes concerns about immigration status. Seems to me that the ability for this community to set its priorities would be entirely dependent on whether or not they could claim that the "investigation of drug gangs" is ongoing, and to question immigration status would hamper that investigation. Does the community win against these suits? How bad must these turf wars be to prevail? Does it matter?

I don't see how that puts citizens in charge. Clearly, the community is completely ignoring the law.

 

[urbanhack]

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.

Well yeah, non-hispanic will not be affected at all by the law and will only benefit. But again, that doesn't mean it is constitutional.

What about non-hispanics who are here illegally. Oh wait....

 

[Christo]

What about non-hispanics who are here illegally. Oh wait....

I'm pretty sure if they pulled over two white guys for speeding and they couldn't speak English, were evasive and didn't have any ID they'd take a few minutes to check their status too.

 

[timschochet]

What about non-hispanics who are here illegally. Oh wait....

I'm pretty sure if they pulled over two white guys for speeding and they couldn't speak English, were evasive and didn't have any ID they'd take a few minutes to check their status too.

Christo, what percentage of illegal immigrants currently in Arizona do you suppose are NOT hispanic?

 

[Christo]

What about non-hispanics who are here illegally. Oh wait....

I'm pretty sure if they pulled over two white guys for speeding and they couldn't speak English, were evasive and didn't have any ID they'd take a few minutes to check their status too.

Christo, what percentage of illegal immigrants currently in Arizona do you suppose are NOT hispanic?

More than zero

 

[timschochet]

What about non-hispanics who are here illegally. Oh wait....

I'm pretty sure if they pulled over two white guys for speeding and they couldn't speak English, were evasive and didn't have any ID they'd take a few minutes to check their status too.

Christo, what percentage of illegal immigrants currently in Arizona do you suppose are NOT hispanic?

More than zero

Yeah, but in percentage terms, not much more. This law certainly covers non-Latinos, but let's not pretend it was designed for them.

 

[Christo]

What about non-hispanics who are here illegally. Oh wait....

I'm pretty sure if they pulled over two white guys for speeding and they couldn't speak English, were evasive and didn't have any ID they'd take a few minutes to check their status too.

Christo, what percentage of illegal immigrants currently in Arizona do you suppose are NOT hispanic?

More than zero

Yeah, but in percentage terms, not much more. This law certainly covers non-Latinos, but let's not pretend it was designed for them.

Who's pretending it wasn't? AZ doesn't have a problem with Jamaicans. Are you actually claiming that a law can't be passed to address a problem if the problem is being caused mostly by one ethnic group?

 

[timschochet]

Who's pretending it wasn't? AZ doesn't have a problem with Jamaicans. Are you actually claiming that a law can't be passed to address a problem if the problem is being caused mostly by one ethnic group?

Good question. I don't know the answer. It's hard for me to be unbiased here because, as you know, I don't believe in prosecuting illegal immigrants. But if I did, I would still think this particular law unfairly targets Latino Americans. The question then becomes: is there a law that would help fight illegal immigration in Arizona which did not target Latinos? There might be, but in fairness I wouldn't know how to write it.

 

[Christo]

Who's pretending it wasn't? AZ doesn't have a problem with Jamaicans. Are you actually claiming that a law can't be passed to address a problem if the problem is being caused mostly by one ethnic group?

Good question. I don't know the answer. It's hard for me to be unbiased here because, as you know, I don't believe in prosecuting illegal immigrants. But if I did, I would still think this particular law unfairly targets Latino Americans. The question then becomes: is there a law that would help fight illegal immigration in Arizona which did not target Latinos? There might be, but in fairness I wouldn't know how to write it.

Unfairly? Explain please.

 

[timschochet]

Who's pretending it wasn't? AZ doesn't have a problem with Jamaicans. Are you actually claiming that a law can't be passed to address a problem if the problem is being caused mostly by one ethnic group?

Good question. I don't know the answer. It's hard for me to be unbiased here because, as you know, I don't believe in prosecuting illegal immigrants. But if I did, I would still think this particular law unfairly targets Latino Americans. The question then becomes: is there a law that would help fight illegal immigration in Arizona which did not target Latinos? There might be, but in fairness I wouldn't know how to write it.

Unfairly? Explain please.

No. There's lot of pages in this thread already explaining it. You already know my reasons for believing that this is so. The vast majority of American citizens of Latino descent who live in Arizona believe that they will be unfairly targeted by this law, and I think you know the reasons they believe this as well. Just as I know your reasons for not believing it, because you've stated them several times. At this point we're just being redundant. Let's move on to what's going to happen now. As a lawyer, though I know you believe this law is NOT unconstitutional, do you think the courts will agree with you? Or do you believe that it will come down to liberal judges believing it is unconstitutional and conservative judges believing that is isn't?

 

[Neofight]

Who's pretending it wasn't? AZ doesn't have a problem with Jamaicans. Are you actually claiming that a law can't be passed to address a problem if the problem is being caused mostly by one ethnic group?

Good question. I don't know the answer. It's hard for me to be unbiased here because, as you know, I don't believe in prosecuting illegal immigrants. But if I did, I would still think this particular law unfairly targets Latino Americans. The question then becomes: is there a law that would help fight illegal immigration in Arizona which did not target Latinos? There might be, but in fairness I wouldn't know how to write it.

Unfairly? Explain please.

No. There's lot of pages in this thread already explaining it. You already know my reasons for believing that this is so. The vast majority of American citizens of Latino descent who live in Arizona believe that they will be unfairly targeted by this law, and I think you know the reasons they believe this as well. Just as I know your reasons for not believing it, because you've stated them several times. At this point we're just being redundant. Let's move on to what's going to happen now. As a lawyer, though I know you believe this law is NOT unconstitutional, do you think the courts will agree with you? Or do you believe that it will come down to liberal judges believing it is unconstitutional and conservative judges believing that is isn't?

Tim, in all honesty, what are you looking for here? Christo is going to continue to run you around in circles; objectivity is not his strong suite.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, in all honesty, what are you looking for here? Christo is going to continue to run you around in circles; objectivity is not his strong suite.

I was trying to make a point, he asked me a question or two, and I tried to be honest in answering as best I could. Christo is certainly not objective, but he's also a very bright lawyer. I asked him to predict what was going to happen, not what he thinks SHOULD happen, which are two different things. I figured based on the fact that he's a lawyer he might be able to offer some insight. If he chooses not to, then so be it.

 

[mgnbtsn]

So people know, in AZ we are currently cutting teachers, firefighters and policemen.We simply don't have the resources.

That's a great reason to violate the constitution. Are you this dumb?

You talk of violating the constitution.Isn't the constitution directed at American CITIZENS?Citizens defined as either born here in the United States or LEGAL immigrants.I believe that means the constitution doesn't apply to ILLEGAL aliens.And someone has to do something about the continuing problem.

 

[Jabrone]

I am Hispanic, and I am a landowner in West Texas. I support the state of Arizona. I wish that Texas would follow suit, but it's become a political chess piece, so I know that won't happen anytime soon.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So people know, in AZ we are currently cutting teachers, firefighters and policemen.We simply don't have the resources.

That's a great reason to violate the constitution. Are you this dumb?

You talk of violating the constitution.Isn't the constitution directed at American CITIZENS?Citizens defined as either born here in the United States or LEGAL immigrants.I believe that means the constitution doesn't apply to ILLEGAL aliens.

You would beleive wrong.

 

[Christo]

Tim, in all honesty, what are you looking for here? Christo is going to continue to run you around in circles; objectivity is not his strong suite.

I was trying to make a point, he asked me a question or two, and I tried to be honest in answering as best I could. Christo is certainly not objective, but he's also a very bright lawyer. I asked him to predict what was going to happen, not what he thinks SHOULD happen, which are two different things. I figured based on the fact that he's a lawyer he might be able to offer some insight. If he chooses not to, then so be it.

@ Mr. Feelings accusing me of not being objective.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

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

dis·cre·tion

–noun

1.the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment;

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?

Sure, community X has decided that the drug gangs and their turf wars in their community is the greatest threat to peace. That the ability to build trust in the community supersedes concerns about immigration status. Seems to me that the ability for this community to set its priorities would be entirely dependent on whether or not they could claim that the "investigation of drug gangs" is ongoing, and to question immigration status would hamper that investigation. Does the community win against these suits? How bad must these turf wars be to prevail? Does it matter?

I don't see how that puts citizens in charge. Clearly, the community is completely ignoring the law.

 

[Christo]

dis·cre·tion

–noun

1.the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment;

How do I get this through to you? Police departments, sheriff's departments and other law enforcement agencies do not have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature. No matter what they believe the benefit to be.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

dis·cre·tion

–noun

1.the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment;

How do I get this through to you? Police departments, sheriff's departments and other law enforcement agencies do not have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature. No matter what they believe the benefit to be.

Where did I make a claim otherwise? And my example ignored nothing.

 

[Christo]

dis·cre·tion

–noun

1.the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment;

How do I get this through to you? Police departments, sheriff's departments and other law enforcement agencies do not have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature. No matter what they believe the benefit to be.

Where did I make a claim otherwise? And my example ignored nothing.

When I asked for an example that supported your argument, you gave that exact factual scenario:

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?

Sure, community X has decided that the drug gangs and their turf wars in their community is the greatest threat to peace. That the ability to build trust in the community supersedes concerns about immigration status. Seems to me that the ability for this community to set its priorities would be entirely dependent on whether or not they could claim that the "investigation of drug gangs" is ongoing, and to question immigration status would hamper that investigation. Does the community win against these suits? How bad must these turf wars be to prevail? Does it matter?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

law enforcement agencies do not have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature. No matter what they believe the benefit to be.

Where did I make a claim otherwise? And my example ignored nothing.

When I asked for an example that supported your argument, you gave that exact factual scenario:

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?

Sure, community X has decided that the drug gangs and their turf wars in their community is the greatest threat to peace. That the ability to build trust in the community supersedes concerns about immigration status. Seems to me that the ability for this community to set its priorities would be entirely dependent on whether or not they could claim that the "investigation of drug gangs" is ongoing, and to question immigration status would hamper that investigation. Does the community win against these suits? How bad must these turf wars be to prevail? Does it matter?

And the very next sentence directly relates to the law. Then the rest of the post ask which concern would win and where would the lines be drawn?20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW

21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW

22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF

23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO

24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE

25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,

26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION

No where did I state they "have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature". The discretion that I fear is being hindered is the discretion of the law enforcement agencies to use their judgement to balance all of the laws passed by the legislator that they cannot completely ignore.

 

[Christo]

No where did I state they "have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature". The discretion that I fear is being hindered is the discretion of the law enforcement agencies to use their judgement to balance all of the laws passed by the legislator that they cannot completely ignore.

You seem to be missing four very important parts to this law. First, it says there must be a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an alien before a cop can check immigration status. Second, even if there is reasonable suspicion, an attempt to determine immigration status only has to be made "when practicable." Third, even if there is reasonable suspicion and it is practicable to check status, the cop still doesn't have to check immigration status if it would "hinder or obstruct" an ongoing investigation. In other words, cops in the street are given broad discretion as to whether to enforce the law in a particular case. Fourth, any person bringing a lawsuit must show that an offical or agency implemented a "policy or practice" not to enforce the law to its fullest extent.Given the broad discretion given to cops in the street, the only way for a complaint not to be summarily dismissed is to allege that there was a blanket policy not to enforce that law under any circumstance.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

No where did I state they "have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature". The discretion that I fear is being hindered is the discretion of the law enforcement agencies to use their judgement to balance all of the laws passed by the legislator that they cannot completely ignore.

You seem to be missing four very important parts to this law. First, it says there must be a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an alien before a cop can check immigration status. Second, even if there is reasonable suspicion, an attempt to determine immigration status only has to be made "when practicable." Third, even if there is reasonable suspicion and it is practicable to check status, the cop still doesn't have to check immigration status if it would "hinder or obstruct" an ongoing investigation. In other words, cops in the street are given broad discretion as to whether to enforce the law in a particular case. Fourth, any person bringing a lawsuit must show that an offical or agency implemented a "policy or practice" not to enforce the law to its fullest extent.Given the broad discretion given to cops in the street, the only way for a complaint not to be summarily dismissed is to allege that there was a blanket policy not to enforce that law under any circumstance.

You just reversed all of the language of the law to make it seem that an attempt to determine immigration status is the exception, not the rule. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just asking why you think this is the case? It sounds like what you are saying is that in your experience these suits are going to be hard to bring to court. Like I said a page or two earlier, I think section G and I are there to lower the hurdles to keep this from being tossed out. I respect that "in your experience" that is not the case, but still.... I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "reasonable suspicion"?I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "practicable"?I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what "hinders or obstructs an ongoing investigation"?I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what qualifies as "an ongoing investigation"? (My example)I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "fullest extent"?I think suits will be filled to challenge what qualifies as a practice?I hope you are correct and most of these get tossed as you suggests.

 

[Christo]

No where did I state they "have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature". The discretion that I fear is being hindered is the discretion of the law enforcement agencies to use their judgement to balance all of the laws passed by the legislator that they cannot completely ignore.

You seem to be missing four very important parts to this law. First, it says there must be a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an alien before a cop can check immigration status. Second, even if there is reasonable suspicion, an attempt to determine immigration status only has to be made "when practicable." Third, even if there is reasonable suspicion and it is practicable to check status, the cop still doesn't have to check immigration status if it would "hinder or obstruct" an ongoing investigation. In other words, cops in the street are given broad discretion as to whether to enforce the law in a particular case. Fourth, any person bringing a lawsuit must show that an offical or agency implemented a "policy or practice" not to enforce the law to its fullest extent.Given the broad discretion given to cops in the street, the only way for a complaint not to be summarily dismissed is to allege that there was a blanket policy not to enforce that law under any circumstance.

You just reversed all of the language of the law to make it seem that an attempt to determine immigration status is the exception, not the rule. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just asking why you think this is the case? It sounds like what you are saying is that in your experience these suits are going to be hard to bring to court.

I didn't reverse anything. I applied the law.

Like I said a page or two earlier, I think section G and I are there to lower the hurdles to keep this from being tossed out. I respect that "in your experience" that is not the case, but still.... I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "reasonable suspicion"?I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "practicable"?I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what "hinders or obstructs an ongoing investigation"?I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what qualifies as "an ongoing investigation"? (My example)I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "fullest extent"?I think suits will be filled to challenge what qualifies as a practice?I hope you are correct and most of these get tossed as you suggests.

Like I asked before, what factual scenarios can you come up with that would support filing cases like you're describing? You can't have cases without facts.

 

[bg0546]

Hundreds seek to fill vacant positions at Pro's Ranch Market

by Dan Neligh

azfamily.com

Posted on April 22, 2010 at 9:46 PM

PHOENIX -- Job hunters turned out in the hundreds to fill recently-vacant positions at Pro's Ranch Market stores, where a federal audit led to the firing of some 300 workers.

Roxanne Nieves, one of the many that came out in search of a job, said she came to apply after she heard about the layoffs.

"We heard they are firing a lot of illegal people, so we're here to apply," she said.

Nonetheless, she and many others felt guilty about taking the jobs of the people who had just been fired.

"To me, it's pretty hard to see everybody losing jobs," one job hunter said.

About 300 of the 1,500 total employees at the six Phoenix supermarkets were let go this week after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement audit found them to be working illegally.

Attorney Julie Pace said the company has I-9 forms on everyone and uses E-Verify to check employees' eligibility to work, but that is not always enough.

"The company wouldn't know if someone is using counterfeit documents," Pace said.

Pace also called on the federal government to help companies comply with hiring laws.

"We need an easy program for employers to use to hire people -- safe, easy, quick -- so we don't have to deal with ICE audits," she said.

Pro's Ranch Market is among some 1,600 U.S. businesses, including 84 in Arizona, that have undergone ICE audits since July 2009.

ICE says the goal is to reduce demand for illegal employment and protect job opportunities for the nation's lawful workforce.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Hundreds-seek...t-91880224.htmlApparently Americans WILL do the jobs illegals are taking.......

 

[Neofight]

No where did I state they "have the discretion to just completely ignore a law passed by the legislature". The discretion that I fear is being hindered is the discretion of the law enforcement agencies to use their judgement to balance all of the laws passed by the legislator that they cannot completely ignore.

You seem to be missing four very important parts to this law. First, it says there must be a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an alien before a cop can check immigration status. Second, even if there is reasonable suspicion, an attempt to determine immigration status only has to be made "when practicable." Third, even if there is reasonable suspicion and it is practicable to check status, the cop still doesn't have to check immigration status if it would "hinder or obstruct" an ongoing investigation. In other words, cops in the street are given broad discretion as to whether to enforce the law in a particular case. Fourth, any person bringing a lawsuit must show that an offical or agency implemented a "policy or practice" not to enforce the law to its fullest extent.

Given the broad discretion given to cops in the street, the only way for a complaint not to be summarily dismissed is to allege that there was a blanket policy not to enforce that law under any circumstance.

You just reversed all of the language of the law to make it seem that an attempt to determine immigration status is the exception, not the rule. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just asking why you think this is the case? It sounds like what you are saying is that in your experience these suits are going to be hard to bring to court.

I didn't reverse anything. I applied the law.

Like I said a page or two earlier, I think section G and I are there to lower the hurdles to keep this from being tossed out. I respect that "in your experience" that is not the case, but still....

I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "reasonable suspicion"?

I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "practicable"?

I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what "hinders or obstructs an ongoing investigation"?

I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what qualifies as "an ongoing investigation"? (My example)

I think suits will be filled to challenge official policies and practices of what is "fullest extent"?

I think suits will be filled to challenge what qualifies as a practice?

I hope you are correct and most of these get tossed as you suggests.

Like I asked before, what factual scenarios can you come up with that would support filing cases like you're describing? You can't have cases without facts.

Perhaps you could ask these guys.I'm telling you, barrister, AZ is a goldmine! With your brains and my bloodline, we could have countless law suits lined up on both sides. We could do the 12 illegals in a minivan I-10 sting and alert the NSM as to what will take place and end up representing both sides. It would be like you were the Goldman Sachs of the immigration law market, hedging the browns with the skinheads.

Can you get this pesky bar exam taken care of in the next two days?

 

[Christo]

Perhaps you could ask these guys.

I'm telling you, barrister, AZ is a goldmine! With your brains and my bloodline, we could have countless law suits lined up on both sides. We could do the 12 illegals in a minivan I-10 sting and alert the NSM as to what will take place and end up representing both sides. It would be like you were the Goldman Sachs of the immigration law market, hedging the browns with the skinheads.

Can you get this pesky bar exam taken care of in the next two days?

How many times have you been pulled over so far?

 

[Neofight]

Perhaps you could ask these guys.

I'm telling you, barrister, AZ is a goldmine! With your brains and my bloodline, we could have countless law suits lined up on both sides. We could do the 12 illegals in a minivan I-10 sting and alert the NSM as to what will take place and end up representing both sides. It would be like you were the Goldman Sachs of the immigration law market, hedging the browns with the skinheads.

Can you get this pesky bar exam taken care of in the next two days?

How many times have you been pulled over so far?

I'm no longer in AZ. But I am willing to make sacrifices for the cause, man.

 

[Christo]

Perhaps you could ask these guys.

I'm telling you, barrister, AZ is a goldmine! With your brains and my bloodline, we could have countless law suits lined up on both sides. We could do the 12 illegals in a minivan I-10 sting and alert the NSM as to what will take place and end up representing both sides. It would be like you were the Goldman Sachs of the immigration law market, hedging the browns with the skinheads.

Can you get this pesky bar exam taken care of in the next two days?

How many times have you been pulled over so far?

I'm no longer in AZ. But I am willing to make sacrifices for the cause, man.

Let me know when you get there.

 

[Neofight]

Perhaps you could ask these guys.

I'm telling you, barrister, AZ is a goldmine! With your brains and my bloodline, we could have countless law suits lined up on both sides. We could do the 12 illegals in a minivan I-10 sting and alert the NSM as to what will take place and end up representing both sides. It would be like you were the Goldman Sachs of the immigration law market, hedging the browns with the skinheads.

Can you get this pesky bar exam taken care of in the next two days?

How many times have you been pulled over so far?

I'm no longer in AZ. But I am willing to make sacrifices for the cause, man.

Let me know when you get there.

You in? I'll gladly do the groundwork with the NSM as well. I figure we start in Maricopa county, working our way down through Pinal and towards the border and Pima all the way to Santa Cruz. Dupnik is going to be the hardest nut to crack, but Arpaio should be chomping at the bit (to use some of the cowboy speak you seem fond of).

 

[Christo]

Perhaps you could ask these guys.

I'm telling you, barrister, AZ is a goldmine! With your brains and my bloodline, we could have countless law suits lined up on both sides. We could do the 12 illegals in a minivan I-10 sting and alert the NSM as to what will take place and end up representing both sides. It would be like you were the Goldman Sachs of the immigration law market, hedging the browns with the skinheads.

Can you get this pesky bar exam taken care of in the next two days?

How many times have you been pulled over so far?

I'm no longer in AZ. But I am willing to make sacrifices for the cause, man.

Let me know when you get there.

You in? I'll gladly do the groundwork with the NSM as well. I figure we start in Maricopa county, working our way down through Pinal and towards the border and Pima all the way to Santa Cruz. Dupnik is going to be the hardest nut to crack, but Arpaio should be chomping at the bit (to use some of the cowboy speak you seem fond of).

Facts. Remember, we need good facts. And lots of them. Be sure to document your every move.

 

[Neofight]

Facts. Remember, we need good facts. And lots of them. Be sure to document your every move.

You mean like these? Facts don't matter to this legislation, so let's not focus too much on the facts, man. I like our chances with a gung-ho barrister, an overzealous Sheriff or two, a group of white supremacists on the prowl and a poorly written bill that is in a constant state of rewrite by a less than earnest Governor. Throw in a few illegals terrorists dark skinned peoples and we have ourselves a case.

 

[Christo]

Facts. Remember, we need good facts. And lots of them. Be sure to document your every move.

You mean like these? Facts don't matter to this legislation, so let's not focus too much on the facts, man. I like our chances with a gung-ho barrister, an overzealous Sheriff or two, a group of white supremacists on the prowl and a poorly written bill that is in a constant state of rewrite by a less than earnest Governor. Throw in a few illegals terrorists dark skinned peoples and we have ourselves a case.

Who's the lawyer here, slick? Just do what I say and we'll be golden.

 

[Neofight]

Facts. Remember, we need good facts. And lots of them. Be sure to document your every move.

You mean like these? Facts don't matter to this legislation, so let's not focus too much on the facts, man. I like our chances with a gung-ho barrister, an overzealous Sheriff or two, a group of white supremacists on the prowl and a poorly written bill that is in a constant state of rewrite by a less than earnest Governor. Throw in a few illegals terrorists dark skinned peoples and we have ourselves a case.

Who's the lawyer here, slick? Just do what I say and we'll be golden.

I'm cautiously pessimistic, but if you must play Dr. Gonzo to my Duke, then we have to lay some basic ground rules. You handle the drugs and guns. I handle the money and women.Sound fair?

Fear & Loathing in AZ: A Savage Journey to the Heart Death Criminalization of the American Dream. I like it.

 

[Neofight]

I am Hispanic, and I am a landowner in West Texas. I support the state of Arizona. I wish that Texas would follow suit, but it's become a political chess piece, so I know that won't happen anytime soon.

Finally. I'm with you and I'm not surprised your post has been glossed over since you posted it. Seems very few people on this board want to hear why an actual Hispanic man would be opposed to this Arizona law.For the benefit of those on this board and out of personal interest, may I ask why you feel this way?

There are plenty of Hispanics who are opposed to the law, and they've explained why. West Texas isn't one of them. He likes the law.I am curios if he is from Spain, or uses the more contemporary meaning of Hispanic.

 

[Blue-Kun]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/r...p_n_561038.html

Robert Krentz, an Arizona cattle rancher whose killing became a "flashpoint" in the state's immigration debate, may have been killed by an American -- not an illegal immigrant, according to a new report.

The Arizona Daily Star reports that a "American suspect" is the focus of the Krentz murder investigation:

High-ranking government officials with credible information spoke to the Star, citing a desire to quell the fury over illegal immigration and drug smuggling set off by the shooting death of longtime rancher Robert Krentz on March 27.

They said Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is investigating a person in the United States, not in Mexico, in connection with the shooting.

On March 27, Krentz was found shot to death in an ATV on his property in Cochise County, Arizona. A single set of footprints leading from the crime scene to the Mexican border sparked speculation that Krentz was killed by by an illegal immigrant.

Supporters of SB1070, Arizona's strict new immigration law, pointed to Krentz's slaying in arguing for the legislation.

SB1070 makes it a crime to not carry immigration documents and allows Arizona law enforcement to detain anyone who is suspected to be an illegal immigrant.

At an April 2 committee meeting in the Arizona Legislature, SB1070 supporters used Kretnz's death to justify the bill. Feet In 2 Worlds reports:

On Wednesday, supporters of SB 1070 wore black ribbons on their shirts in remembrance of Krentz as they attended a hearing on the bill by the Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety.

"Enough is enough. Rob Krentz's death it's just one more example of government's failure to stand for it's citizens and the rule of law and protects citizens while we continue to harbor criminals and those that violate our sovereignty in our borders," said Sen. Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) author of the bill.

State Rep. David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista) told Feet In 2 Worlds that because of Krentz's murder, people from his area were "hammering and clamoring" for the passage of SB1070.

The bill was signed into law April 23 by Republican Governor Jan Brewer.

If Krentz's murder turns out to be unrelated to Mexican border violence, many people could be proven wrong.

Last month, during testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever called Krentz's death an "exclamation point" on the discussion about Mexican violence spilling across the border.

Republican Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, has made similar comments, and described Krentz as a "martyr" for border control. Hayworth even used Krentz's murder to "pound" incumbent Sen. John McCain over his immigration stance.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-AZ) also pointed to Krentz's slaying when she asked for National Guard troops to be deployed along Arizona's border just three days after his death.

Krentz's family has blamed his death on U.S. political forces and their "disregard" of warnings about violence. They support the deployment of National Guard forces along the border:

We hold no malice towards the Mexican people for this senseless act but do hold the political forces in this country and Mexico accountable for what has happened. Their disregard of our repeated pleas and warnings of impending violence towards our community fell on deaf ears shrouded in political correctness. As a result, we have paid the ultimate price for their negligence in credibly securing our Borderlands.

Just leaving this here.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

What's up with Arizona? They were the last state to make MLK day a holiday. Woz's lady and her family are tobacco chewing racists. etc.

By The Time I Get To Arizona

 

[jonessed]

This law is going to go into effect one way or another. AZ citizens, the legislature, and the governor are all for it. They will simply rewrite any portion that gets shot down on legal challenge and pass it again.

The only way to prevent it is for the Feds to finally get off their asses and address the issue. Obama has a commanding majority in Congress. Let's see if he is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

 

[Neofight]

This law is going to go into effect one way or another. AZ citizens, the legislature, and the governor are all for it. They will simply rewrite any portion that gets shot down on legal challenge and pass it again.The only way to prevent it is for the Feds to finally get off their asses and address the issue. Obama has a commanding majority in Congress. Let's see if he is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

I admire your passion on this subject.

 

[Neofight]

Another AZ legislator that pushed this thing showing some interesting feathers.

StormfrontWPWW (White Pride Worldwide) is the Twitter account for Stormfront, a racist organization that is the latest project of uber-racist Stephen Donald Black, better known as Don Black. He was a Grand Wizard in the KKK and a member of the American Nazi Party. In 1981 he was convicted and jailed for trying to invade Dominica with a boatload of weapons, in order to set up some kind of utopian state. (He's pictured below, at a conference organized by the infamous white supremacist David Duke.) Stormfront.org, the website he set up on his release from jail, is a hate-filled racist forum.

Its Twitter account, and another neo-Nazi feed linked to it, are among 4,819 that Arizona State Senate Majority Leader Chuck Gray (top) follows. (See screenshots below.) Stormfront does not reciprocate, however—the group follows no one. Which means that Gray, or whoever is responsible for his Twitter account, sought out the racist organization specifically and decided its tweets were essential reading.

 

[Statorama]

Who's the lawyer here, slick? Just do what I say and we'll be golden.

love it

 

[tommyGunZ]

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.

Really? From the AZ Central article Neoflight linked:

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. In fact, according to the Border Patrol, Krentz is the only American murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in at least a decade within the agency's Tucson sector, the busiest smuggling route among the Border Patrol's nine coverage regions along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Cochise County's crime rate has been "flat" for at least 10 years, the sheriff added. Even in 2000, when record numbers of undocumented immigrants were detained in the area, just 4 percent of the area's violent crimes were committed by illegal aliens.

Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor said his town suffers from home invasions and kidnappings involving marijuana smugglers who are undoubtedly tied to Mexican organizations. However, he added, most of those committing the rip-offs are American citizens.

Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff of Pima County, said there always has been crime associated with smuggling in southern Arizona, but today's rhetoric does not seem to jibe with reality.

"This is a media-created event," Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure.

I'm not going to generalize and call Zonies who support this law "racists". But it is interesting that data and facts do not seem to support any of the rhetoric from those who support the new law. My question is, if violent crime is either stable or down in AZ border towns, what is the impetus for this law?

 

[TommyGilmore]

What about non-hispanics who are here illegally. Oh wait....

I'm pretty sure if they pulled over two white guys for speeding and they couldn't speak English, were evasive and didn't have any ID they'd take a few minutes to check their status too.

Why do you assume that an English speaking white male can't be an illegal immigrant?

 

[Christo]

What about non-hispanics who are here illegally. Oh wait....

I'm pretty sure if they pulled over two white guys for speeding and they couldn't speak English, were evasive and didn't have any ID they'd take a few minutes to check their status too.

Why do you assume that an English speaking white male can't be an illegal immigrant?

Where did I assume that?

 

[Gopher State]

I was watching the evening news and they talked to illegal's who were packing up and leaving AZ because of the new law.

They were moving to CA and CO, this law is already providing positive results for AZ.

 

[timschochet]

I was watching the evening news and they talked to illegal's who were packing up and leaving AZ because of the new law.

They were moving to CA and CO, this law is already providing positive results for AZ.

On the contrary, it is providing positive results for CA and CO.