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

[whitem0nkey]

Seth Myers: I know there’s some people in Arizona worried that Obama is acting like Hitler, but could we all agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying "Show me your papers?"

 

[videoguy505]

Hey, Arizona. If you really wanted to end illegal immigration, you should fine anyone who hired an undocumented worker. But that isn't the point, is it?Fine them for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars, make it financially a liability to hire illegal aliens so legal citizens and only legal immigrants with work visas get the job.

Perhaps you should read the law. There are many changes to how employers must verify and keep records (for years after a person leaves) for all employees.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.

But wait tim, nobody will get stopped and asked to present their papers without some form of probable cause. You can't possibly expect that this approach could lead to improper behavior by law enforcement, can you? It's not like we have any evidence of the police improperly profiling people anywhere else.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Hey, Arizona. If you really wanted to end illegal immigration, you should fine anyone who hired an undocumented worker. But that isn't the point, is it?Fine them for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars, make it financially a liability to hire illegal aliens so legal citizens and only legal immigrants with work visas get the job.

Perhaps you should read the law. There are many changes to how employers must verify and keep records (for years after a person leaves) for all employees.

True. That's the one part of the law that makes sense.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THISSTATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO ISUNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THEPERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTPURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

I have a problem with state governments empowering state officials to accost people based on a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants. I take it you are cool with that?

It's pretty clear to me that "reasonable suspicion" will mean if you look or sound Mexican, or have a Mexican name, you will get questioned. It's nothing but racial profiling and I fail to see how people who talk about infringing on our freedom and liberty can be in favor of this. I know some will claim there will not be any racial profiling, but I find it hard to believe.

 

[videoguy505]

You're cool with people being required to defend their citizenship at the whim of a law enforcement representative just because they have brown skin? Because that's what the law permits.

But this part isn't in the law.

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THISSTATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO ISUNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THEPERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTPURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

I have a problem with state governments empowering state officials to accost people based on a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants. I take it you are cool with that?

"Accost?", no. "Investigate?", yes. And I do have an issue, which I've raised probably a dozen times in this thread, with the "reasonable suspicion" threshold. I'd rather it be raised to "probable cause" (which it is later in the bill to actually arrest someone), but no one seems interested in that part of things.And you left out the next sentence, which was the original issue you raised: "A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."Edit: police already have the power to make a Terry Stop. If that's what you're against, your beef isn't with this bill, it's with existing interpretations of police powers.

 

[whitem0nkey]

Hey, Arizona. If you really wanted to end illegal immigration, you should fine anyone who hired an undocumented worker. But that isn't the point, is it?Fine them for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars, make it financially a liability to hire illegal aliens so legal citizens and only legal immigrants with work visas get the job.

Perhaps you should read the law. There are many changes to how employers must verify and keep records (for years after a person leaves) for all employees.

stop playing games.It's mildly enforced (and im being generous here). The problem is that the law requires that a company knowingly hire illegal immigrants. If a company is cited they'll usually claim that the employee presented falsified documents.and they get away with it.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

It's pretty clear to me that "reasonable suspicion" will mean if you look or sound Mexican, or have a Mexican name, you will get questioned. It's nothing but racial profiling and I fail to see how people who talk about infringing on our freedom and liberty can be in favor of this. I know some will claim there will not be any racial profiling, but I find it hard to believe.

AB -People like the idea of "solving" our illegal immigration problem. And because this bill pretends to do that - see the nonsense LHUCKS spewed throughout this thread - people get on board regardless of the absence of logic.It's disappointing that nobody is willing to have the conversation about exactly HOW this bill will solve AZ's problems. Is it simply because the govt will miraculously round up all illegals and throw them back across the border? Does that strike anybody in here as a good solution? What problem are we solving here?I'm all ears - really, I'd love to see this debate truly take place. (ideally it would be nice to see our govt leaders take up the debate in public - but of course it would degenerate into nonsense)

 

[TobiasFunke]

You're cool with people being required to defend their citizenship at the whim of a law enforcement representative just because they have brown skin? Because that's what the law permits.

But this part isn't in the law.

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

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

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

WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

I have a problem with state governments empowering state officials to accost people based on a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants. I take it you are cool with that?

"Accost?", no. "Investigate?", yes. And I do have an issue, which I've raised probably a dozen times in this thread, with the "reasonable suspicion" threshold. I'd rather it be raised to "probable cause" (which it is later in the bill to actually arrest someone), but no one seems interested in that part of things.

And you left out the next sentence, which was the original issue you raised: "A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."

That's enough for you? May not "solely" consider?

"He looked Mexican ... but he also spoke Spanish! And he ate a taco! So I reasonably suspected he was from Mexico and here illegally."

 

[bigbottom]

You're cool with people being required to defend their citizenship at the whim of a law enforcement representative just because they have brown skin? Because that's what the law permits.

But this part isn't in the law.

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THISSTATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO ISUNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THEPERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTPURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

I have a problem with state governments empowering state officials to accost people based on a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants. I take it you are cool with that?

"Accost?", no. "Investigate?", yes. And I do have an issue, which I've raised probably a dozen times in this thread, with the "reasonable suspicion" threshold. I'd rather it be raised to "probable cause" (which it is later in the bill to actually arrest someone), but no one seems interested in that part of things.

If a cop has reasonable suspicion to believe someone is here illegally, and when stopped and asked to produce documentation proving legal residence the person fails to do so, wouldn't you pretty much have probable cause at that point?

 

[The Commish]

Then put me down for missing your point. If you could explain it with references to the parts of the actual law you have problems with, that'd be a help.

Let me clarify- here's Wikipedia on "reasonable suspicion," which is in line with the law on this subject as I recall it (although I'd love to read a good Constitutional/1983 analysis of the Arizona law if anyone knows of one):

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.

All of this focuses on behaviors that make authorities suspicious that a crime has been committed. What behavior can make one suspicious that a person is an illegal immigrant? Honestly, I can't think of anything. How do you act like someone who is an illegal immigrant, other than illegally immigrating, in which case the authorities have probable cause and they don't need this law to detain you?

I'm not sure I understand. If a group of guys standing in front of a HD bolt upon site of a police car, would that not be reason for the police to be suspicious of that group of guys? Notice here, I didn't mention race at all. I would think this is an example of suspicious behavior for any race.

 

[Desert_Power]

What's the legal basis for ACLU's beef?

Might as well answer this myself, dug this up:http://www.acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20...d%204-14-10.pdf

Will for later.

ETA: initial skim shows a few 'this is unnecessary because there's already a federal law for it' things, but some of their items of dispute are interesting angles.

The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders and, with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration. Page 3. I've heard this in the past with other local laws, but am not certain if this has been used strike any of them down.

Gonna continue to preface with "I'm not a lawyerguy":

I guess the counter-interpretation is that this isn't a new law created by the state of Arizona. It's an existing Federal law that aliens must carry their paperwork at all times. But honestly I don't know the precedents for a state co-opting a federal law. It's an interesting argument but one I'm not sure matters that much... State & local police are allowed to arrest people who have committed federal crimes. Deleting this section would still mean people could be prosecuted for violating the already-existing federal statute.

[Edit: another half-hour thinking about this, and I'd say there's more merit to the ACLU's position than I initially gave it credit for. Federal statue names both the crime and the punishment, and I think Arizona might lack the authority to change the punishment. Not a lawyer. It'll be interesting to see if this part of the challenge holds up, and if just this section would be struck down or the entire law. And, if not the entire law, what teeth it would have left without this section, if the assertion about part E (ACLU challenging per Gonzales v. City of Peoria) also goes the ACLU's way.]

Skimmed the link here, would be interested in reading what a lawyer guy has to say about some of this. Part E does seem to be the meat of their complain though.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Edit: police already have the power to make a Terry Stop. If that's what you're against, your beef isn't with this bill, it's with existing interpretations of police powers.

As I said on the last page, Terry stops (which I hate, but that's a subject for another time) are based on suspicious behaviors. Perhaps you can articulate what sort of behavior might make one reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal alien?

 

[bigbottom]

Edit: police already have the power to make a Terry Stop. If that's what you're against, your beef isn't with this bill, it's with existing interpretations of police powers.

As I said on the last page, Terry stops (which I hate, but that's a subject for another time) are based on suspicious behaviors. Perhaps you can articulate what sort of behavior might make one reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal alien?

Landscaping?

 

[whoknew]

Edit: police already have the power to make a Terry Stop. If that's what you're against, your beef isn't with this bill, it's with existing interpretations of police powers.

As I said on the last page, Terry stops (which I hate, but that's a subject for another time) are based on suspicious behaviors. Perhaps you can articulate what sort of behavior might make one reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal alien?

Landscaping?

I would hate to be a housecleaner in Arizona.

 

[Card Trader]

The governor has already said people won't be stopped based on the color of their skin, she said the police force will go through ample training, but everyone here still believes that this is going to turn into Nazi Germany...

I have no doubt there might be a few knucklehead cops but hopefully they will get weeded out quickly and this gets enforced in a sane manner. I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

There truly is a lot of crime especially in the border towns here due to the influx of illegals. If anything this bill may be a deterrent for some to cross.

 

[videoguy505]

Edit: police already have the power to make a Terry Stop. If that's what you're against, your beef isn't with this bill, it's with existing interpretations of police powers.

As I said on the last page, Terry stops (which I hate, but that's a subject for another time) are based on suspicious behaviors. Perhaps you can articulate what sort of behavior might make one reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal alien?

Honestly? I can't think of any "behavior" which would qualify. I'm interested in seeing what guidance the AZ gov't gives officers in this area, which is why I'm reserving judgment on the bill. Because as I interpret things, mere "behavior" is generally not enough for a reasonable person to distinguish between two people as far as alien status. I'd much rather the standard be related to information the officer comes across, that is, he's tipped off somehow to a person's status (by H.R. at some company, or was told during a related investigation). I don't know what "behavior" alone counts.

 

[videoguy505]

I'm not sure I understand. If a group of guys standing in front of a HD bolt upon site of a police car, would that not be reason for the police to be suspicious of that group of guys? Notice here, I didn't mention race at all. I would think this is an example of suspicious behavior for any race.

I kind of think not, similar to the situation when a cop pulls you over and claims to be "reasonably suspicious" as to the contents of your vehicle, and asks if he can search it. If you say "No," your refusal to a search, IIRC, cannot be then used to justify "probable cause" for the officer to forcibly inspect your trunk. ("Oh, he said I can't look, so he must be hiding something" cannot be an argument).

 

[perry147]

I'm not sure I understand. If a group of guys standing in front of a HD bolt upon site of a police car, would that not be reason for the police to be suspicious of that group of guys? Notice here, I didn't mention race at all. I would think this is an example of suspicious behavior for any race.

I kind of think not, similar to the situation when a cop pulls you over and claims to be "reasonably suspicious" as to the contents of your vehicle, and asks if he can search it. If you say "No," your refusal to a search, IIRC, cannot be then used to justify "probable cause" for the officer to forcibly inspect your trunk. ("Oh, he said I can't look, so he must be hiding something" cannot be an argument).

How about this?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Edit: police already have the power to make a Terry Stop. If that's what you're against, your beef isn't with this bill, it's with existing interpretations of police powers.

As I said on the last page, Terry stops (which I hate, but that's a subject for another time) are based on suspicious behaviors. Perhaps you can articulate what sort of behavior might make one reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal alien?

Honestly? I can't think of any "behavior" which would qualify. I'm interested in seeing what guidance the AZ gov't gives officers in this area, which is why I'm reserving judgment on the bill. Because as I interpret things, mere "behavior" is generally not enough for a reasonable person to distinguish between two people as far as alien status. I'd much rather the standard be related to information the officer comes across, that is, he's tipped off somehow to a person's status (by H.R. at some company, or was told during a related investigation). I don't know what "behavior" alone counts.

I think this is the real problem. Obviously the law doesn't say pull aside the brown people and ask to see their papers. But if you and I both have a hard time envisioning what else might constitute a reasonable suspicion, and the law clearly expands police discretion generally- and threatens law enforcement with citizen lawsuits if they're perceived as not doing enough to enforce the law? Well, you're a smart guy. I assume you can see where people might be mildly concerned with this.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The governor has already said people won't be stopped based on the color of their skin, she said the police force will go through ample training, but everyone here still believes that this is going to turn into Nazi Germany...I have no doubt there might be a few knucklehead cops but hopefully they will get weeded out quickly and this gets enforced in a sane manner. I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option. There truly is a lot of crime especially in the border towns here due to the influx of illegals. If anything this bill may be a deterrent for some to cross.

1. Can you explain how this would be enforced in a "sane" manner, i.e. what behaviors other than looking or acting like you're from another country would make an officer reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal immigrant?2. You should read back a couple pages. Good statistical study showing that illegals actually commit less crime than others.

 

[bigbottom]

I'm not sure I understand. If a group of guys standing in front of a HD bolt upon site of a police car, would that not be reason for the police to be suspicious of that group of guys? Notice here, I didn't mention race at all. I would think this is an example of suspicious behavior for any race.

I kind of think not, similar to the situation when a cop pulls you over and claims to be "reasonably suspicious" as to the contents of your vehicle, and asks if he can search it. If you say "No," your refusal to a search, IIRC, cannot be then used to justify "probable cause" for the officer to forcibly inspect your trunk. ("Oh, he said I can't look, so he must be hiding something" cannot be an argument).

So would you reach a similar conclusion with respect to the question I posed above?If a cop has reasonable suspicion to believe someone is here illegally, and when stopped and asked to produce documentation proving legal residence the person fails to do so, wouldn't you pretty much have probable cause at that point?

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, videoguy, I was gone for a while, so let me try to address your point, which you have made several times:

You have argued that those of us opposed to this law are making assumptions about what "reasonable suspicion" entails when the law itself does no such thing. As an analogy, you point out that police officers already stop people all the time when they are "reasonably suspicious" of a crime having occurred, and you implication seems to be we should trust the police to do this wisely. Finally, you also point out that the law explicitly states that racial profiling shall NOT be used as a form of determining illegal immigrant. (Hope I have summarized your arguments correctly.)

Here are my problems with your argument:

1. If being an illegal alien is a crime, it is a crime of status not of action. Police are normally concerned with people who are in the process of performing a crime, or whom they suspect have performed a crime. This law, therefore, cannot be compared to other examples of "reasonable suspicion".

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Although I am no lawyer, it is my understanding that to be unconstitutional a law needn't explicitly call for a violation of the Constitution; it need only create, through its enforcement, a probable result which will be unconstitutional.

 

[The Commish]

Edit: police already have the power to make a Terry Stop. If that's what you're against, your beef isn't with this bill, it's with existing interpretations of police powers.

As I said on the last page, Terry stops (which I hate, but that's a subject for another time) are based on suspicious behaviors. Perhaps you can articulate what sort of behavior might make one reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal alien?

Honestly? I can't think of any "behavior" which would qualify. I'm interested in seeing what guidance the AZ gov't gives officers in this area, which is why I'm reserving judgment on the bill. Because as I interpret things, mere "behavior" is generally not enough for a reasonable person to distinguish between two people as far as alien status. I'd much rather the standard be related to information the officer comes across, that is, he's tipped off somehow to a person's status (by H.R. at some company, or was told during a related investigation). I don't know what "behavior" alone counts.

I think this is the real problem. Obviously the law doesn't say pull aside the brown people and ask to see their papers. But if you and I both have a hard time envisioning what else might constitute a reasonable suspicion, and the law clearly expands police discretion generally- and threatens law enforcement with citizen lawsuits if they're perceived as not doing enough to enforce the law? Well, you're a smart guy. I assume you can see where people might be mildly concerned with this.

I tend to agree here. Not sure what a person would do to trigger a cop to stop someone on this alone. However, I have NO problem whatsoever with a cop pulling someone for some other crime and asking for proof of citizenship. Similar to the seatbelt laws where they can't pull you JUST for that, but you can be cited if you were pulled for speeding etc. Same here...pulled for speeding, ask for docs.

 

[videoguy505]

Edit: police already have the power to make a Terry Stop. If that's what you're against, your beef isn't with this bill, it's with existing interpretations of police powers.

As I said on the last page, Terry stops (which I hate, but that's a subject for another time) are based on suspicious behaviors. Perhaps you can articulate what sort of behavior might make one reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal alien?

Honestly? I can't think of any "behavior" which would qualify. I'm interested in seeing what guidance the AZ gov't gives officers in this area, which is why I'm reserving judgment on the bill. Because as I interpret things, mere "behavior" is generally not enough for a reasonable person to distinguish between two people as far as alien status. I'd much rather the standard be related to information the officer comes across, that is, he's tipped off somehow to a person's status (by H.R. at some company, or was told during a related investigation). I don't know what "behavior" alone counts.

I think this is the real problem. Obviously the law doesn't say pull aside the brown people and ask to see their papers. But if you and I both have a hard time envisioning what else might constitute a reasonable suspicion, and the law clearly expands police discretion generally- and threatens law enforcement with citizen lawsuits if they're perceived as not doing enough to enforce the law? Well, you're a smart guy. I assume you can see where people might be mildly concerned with this.

I agree with you that reasonable suspicion is too weak a standard. My issue is probably framed best as: Terry Stops are already legal if the police have reasonable suspicion you've committed a crime. Being in this country illegally is already a crime. State & local police already have the authority to investigate and arrest people for violating immigration laws.... all that being said, how else could this law be written? All the power and authority have already been granted, decades ago, by the courts and the federal government. All this law seems to me to be doing is compelling police to exercise their fullest authority in the area.

 

[videoguy505]

What's the legal basis for ACLU's beef?

Might as well answer this myself, dug this up:http://www.acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20...d%204-14-10.pdf

Will for later.

ETA: initial skim shows a few 'this is unnecessary because there's already a federal law for it' things, but some of their items of dispute are interesting angles.

The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders and, with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration. Page 3. I've heard this in the past with other local laws, but am not certain if this has been used strike any of them down.

Gonna continue to preface with "I'm not a lawyerguy":

I guess the counter-interpretation is that this isn't a new law created by the state of Arizona. It's an existing Federal law that aliens must carry their paperwork at all times. But honestly I don't know the precedents for a state co-opting a federal law. It's an interesting argument but one I'm not sure matters that much... State & local police are allowed to arrest people who have committed federal crimes. Deleting this section would still mean people could be prosecuted for violating the already-existing federal statute.

[Edit: another half-hour thinking about this, and I'd say there's more merit to the ACLU's position than I initially gave it credit for. Federal statue names both the crime and the punishment, and I think Arizona might lack the authority to change the punishment. Not a lawyer. It'll be interesting to see if this part of the challenge holds up, and if just this section would be struck down or the entire law. And, if not the entire law, what teeth it would have left without this section, if the assertion about part E (ACLU challenging per Gonzales v. City of Peoria) also goes the ACLU's way.]

Skimmed the link here, would be interested in reading what a lawyer guy has to say about some of this. Part E does seem to be the meat of their complain though.

Yeah, E has problems (if I were a legislator, I'd probably have voted against it), but even if it's totally struck down, I'm not sure how fatal that is to the law as a whole. Deleting this one section would still leave the federal law it mimics as-is.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I have no doubt there might be a few knucklehead cops but hopefully they will get weeded out quickly and this gets enforced in a sane manner.

Yeah, this is usually how it works.

 

[H.K.]

It's disappointing that nobody is willing to have the conversation about exactly HOW this bill will solve AZ's problems. Is it simply because the govt will miraculously round up all illegals and throw them back across the border? Does that strike anybody in here as a good solution? What problem are we solving here?

An attempted answer of the bolded:

January 5, 2010

The State of Arizona has taken on an unprecedented amount of debt, $6.3 billion, despite a strict debt limit of $350,000. When local government debt is included, the total amount of debt for all levels of Arizona government swells to $37 billion. That's about $6,000 for every man woman and child in Arizona. In just four years, from 2004 to 2008, state and local debt in Arizona increased by more than $10 billion.

...and this was from a 2004 study:

Arizonans fork out nearly $1.3 billion annually to pay for all of the costs incurred from illegal immigration; around $810 million for education, $400 million for health care related expenses, $80 million in incarceration costs, and the remainder in welfare benefits. All of this is required while Arizona runs a $500 million deficit annually.

Your earlier question on how it solves their problem remains to be seen. However, a logical assumption is that if AZ really cracks down, they'll see illegals proactively move on to other states which have a more "illegal friendly" reputation. For AZ, it isn't just about kicking out the ones they bust. It's about stopping new ones from entering and scaring off old ones without any intervention at all. Since AZ only cares about themselves, I can certainly see how it would benefit them to have a lower illegal immigration population.

 

[The Commish]

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Would you have a problem with a policeman chasing down a guy that bolted when he saw the police officer if, after he caught him, he found he was here illegally? The police officer didn't chase him down because he thought he was here illegally, but because he bolted when he saw him. Later he finds out he's here illegally. What do you do with the illegal?

 

[Card Trader]

The governor has already said people won't be stopped based on the color of their skin, she said the police force will go through ample training, but everyone here still believes that this is going to turn into Nazi Germany...I have no doubt there might be a few knucklehead cops but hopefully they will get weeded out quickly and this gets enforced in a sane manner. I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option. There truly is a lot of crime especially in the border towns here due to the influx of illegals. If anything this bill may be a deterrent for some to cross.

1. Can you explain how this would be enforced in a "sane" manner, i.e. what behaviors other than looking or acting like you're from another country would make an officer reasonably suspicious that someone is an illegal immigrant?2. You should read back a couple pages. Good statistical study showing that illegals actually commit less crime than others.

1. I'm certain that people far more qualified than me will come up with a system that doesn't discriminate based on skin color etc., we managed to do it with the airport security checks so I imagine if they are serious about the bill they will figure it out. Obviously this puts a lot of trust in our elected officials to actually think...but what else can we do?2. Historically that's probably true. Lately though, it IS bad, this really isn't an argument. Border towns have been terrorized by these people.

 

[TobiasFunke]

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Would you have a problem with a policeman chasing down a guy that bolted when he saw the police officer if, after he caught him, he found he was here illegally? The police officer didn't chase him down because he thought he was here illegally, but because he bolted when he saw him. Later he finds out he's here illegally. What do you do with the illegal?

They don't need this law to deal with that guy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

 

[The Commish]

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Would you have a problem with a policeman chasing down a guy that bolted when he saw the police officer if, after he caught him, he found he was here illegally? The police officer didn't chase him down because he thought he was here illegally, but because he bolted when he saw him. Later he finds out he's here illegally. What do you do with the illegal?

They don't need this law to deal with that guy.

Genuine question....are they allowed to ask for papers today in this situation? Are the cops allowed to do something with them if they find they are illegal?

 

[Card Trader]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

Oh. Sorry. Figured that was something all Americans agreed on. My bad.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

1. I'm certain that people far more qualified than me will come up with a system that doesn't discriminate based on skin color etc.,

How? The whole point of this law is to curtail illegal immigration from Mexico. Cops are not going to be stopping white people to find out if they snuck in from Australia. It's not possible to enforce this law without targeting hispanics.

 

[timschochet]

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Would you have a problem with a policeman chasing down a guy that bolted when he saw the police officer if, after he caught him, he found he was here illegally? The police officer didn't chase him down because he thought he was here illegally, but because he bolted when he saw him. Later he finds out he's here illegally. What do you do with the illegal?

First of all, there is already a law on the books in Arizona that allows police to investigate people who have committed some other crime (or who are suspected of doing so) regarding their citizenship. This was a proposition, I believe, which was voted on a few years back; apparently it was not enough for Arizona. Personally, I have a problem even with THAT, but I am admittedly extremist on this issue, so you needn't agree with me and I don't expect most will. However, I think that most people who really take the time to look at this new law should conclude that its over the top, even for those who want to "solve" the illegal immigration "problem".

 

[Zow]

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THISSTATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO ISUNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THEPERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTPURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

I have a problem with state governments empowering state officials to accost people based on a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants. I take it you are cool with that?

It's pretty clear to me that "reasonable suspicion" will mean if you look or sound Mexican, or have a Mexican name, you will get questioned. It's nothing but racial profiling and I fail to see how people who talk about infringing on our freedom and liberty can be in favor of this. I know some will claim there will not be any racial profiling, but I find it hard to believe.

In Arizona reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts going beyond mere hunch or racial profiling when taken in totality suggest that criminal activity is afoot and officers are permitted to do a brief stop on the suspect. It's not a high standard, but it's a standard that is worth litigating in a decent number of cases.

 

[TobiasFunke]

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Would you have a problem with a policeman chasing down a guy that bolted when he saw the police officer if, after he caught him, he found he was here illegally? The police officer didn't chase him down because he thought he was here illegally, but because he bolted when he saw him. Later he finds out he's here illegally. What do you do with the illegal?

They don't need this law to deal with that guy.

Genuine question....are they allowed to ask for papers today in this situation? Are the cops allowed to do something with them if they find they are illegal?

On the latter, yes. Not my area of expertise, see Videoguy's post on local law enforcement enforcing federal law above.

 

[Card Trader]

1. I'm certain that people far more qualified than me will come up with a system that doesn't discriminate based on skin color etc.,

How? The whole point of this law is to curtail illegal immigration from Mexico. Cops are not going to be stopping white people to find out if they snuck in from Australia. It's not possible to enforce this law without targeting hispanics.

You do realize there are tons of very light skinned Mexicans...right? Some of them look "white", there are also many people who look "Mexican" but aren't. How do we do it with airport security, because the 60 year old white woman in front of me last time I went certainly didn't look like a middle eastern terrorist.It's really serving you no good to act like this bill will make it so that there are checkpoints every 2 miles on the I-10 where they pull over every hispanic person and demand papers from them, because that's not what will happen. Why automatically assume this is going to be enforced like it's Heinrich Himmler running it?

 

[Zow]

1. I'm certain that people far more qualified than me will come up with a system that doesn't discriminate based on skin color etc.,

How? The whole point of this law is to curtail illegal immigration from Mexico. Cops are not going to be stopping white people to find out if they snuck in from Australia. It's not possible to enforce this law without targeting hispanics.

Right, as it would likely be one of that factors taken in totality for the basis of the stop. My guess is that Arizona judges will permit the stops so long as the arresting officer has one other non-race based fact suggesting he may be illegal - like riding in the back of a truck or something.

 

[Radical Larry]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

Oh. Sorry. Figured that was something all Americans agreed on. My bad.

I don't agree with it either. Removing all of the illegal immigrants wouldn't be very healthy for the work force in the Southwest.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

Oh. Sorry. Figured that was something all Americans agreed on. My bad.

Those of us who don't live in border states are big fans of cheap domestic labor.

 

[timschochet]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

Oh. Sorry. Figured that was something all Americans agreed on. My bad.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic? Plenty of Americans disagree with you. I personally believe that illegal immigration is a great benefit for the United States, and I am in favor of open borders. Anyone that would like to read more about the arguments I believe in, you can visit the Cato Institute website, or the Reason Foundation website. Both of these offer excellent articles and studies as to how illegal immigration is a good thing. They are not liberal, but libertarian (small "l") foundations.

 

[Ray Stevens]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

Great post.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Would you have a problem with a policeman chasing down a guy that bolted when he saw the police officer if, after he caught him, he found he was here illegally? The police officer didn't chase him down because he thought he was here illegally, but because he bolted when he saw him. Later he finds out he's here illegally. What do you do with the illegal?

I think you should have the right to avoid the cops and not be considered suspicious, if you weren't already doing something illegal that he noticed.

 

[Desert_Power]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

 

[The Commish]

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Would you have a problem with a policeman chasing down a guy that bolted when he saw the police officer if, after he caught him, he found he was here illegally? The police officer didn't chase him down because he thought he was here illegally, but because he bolted when he saw him. Later he finds out he's here illegally. What do you do with the illegal?

First of all, there is already a law on the books in Arizona that allows police to investigate people who have committed some other crime (or who are suspected of doing so) regarding their citizenship. This was a proposition, I believe, which was voted on a few years back; apparently it was not enough for Arizona. Personally, I have a problem even with THAT, but I am admittedly extremist on this issue, so you needn't agree with me and I don't expect most will. However, I think that most people who really take the time to look at this new law should conclude that its over the top, even for those who want to "solve" the illegal immigration "problem".

Not really sure what your stance is honestly. That's why I asked the question. Sounds to me like you feel the concept of illegal immigrant shouldn't even exist. Fair?

 

[Ray Stevens]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

Oh. Sorry. Figured that was something all Americans agreed on. My bad.

I don't agree with it either. Removing all of the illegal immigrants wouldn't be very healthy for the work force in the Southwest.

Not to mention the CA Valley.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

1. I'm certain that people far more qualified than me will come up with a system that doesn't discriminate based on skin color etc.,

How? The whole point of this law is to curtail illegal immigration from Mexico. Cops are not going to be stopping white people to find out if they snuck in from Australia. It's not possible to enforce this law without targeting hispanics.

You do realize there are tons of very light skinned Mexicans...right? Some of them look "white", there are also many people who look "Mexican" but aren't. How do we do it with airport security, because the 60 year old white woman in front of me last time I went certainly didn't look like a middle eastern terrorist.It's really serving you no good to act like this bill will make it so that there are checkpoints every 2 miles on the I-10 where they pull over every hispanic person and demand papers from them, because that's not what will happen. Why automatically assume this is going to be enforced like it's Heinrich Himmler running it?

I agree that the Hitler analogies are stupid and unhelpful. I just dont' see any realistic way of enforcing this law in a way that doesn't disproportionately target latinos for harassment. If I got pulled over for speeding in Arizona, I'd guess there is about a 0% chance that I would be asked for proof of citizenship. For a first- or second-generation immigrant from Honduras, though, that probability is going to be greater than 0.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

This was all covered in a 1980's documentary called "Born in East L.A"