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

[BassNBrew]

I love all the people in AZ pretending to know AZ's problems...

We're not talking about racism in the South in the 1950s...

Youi're right that you are not 50s racists- but I should point out that the bolded argument was always made by 50s racists...

The differences here are profound, but I'd expect somebody of your caliber to fail to see the VAST differences.

There are incredible differences, but that was not my point. My point is that its a weak argument, then or now, to say, "You don't live here, so you don't understand our problems." Its the argument of people who can't win by resorting to reason and logic, and so they're left with this.

Pretty common approach when isreal comes up too.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I love all the people in AZ pretending to know AZ's problems...

We're not talking about racism in the South in the 1950s...

Youi're right that you are not 50s racists- but I should point out that the bolded argument was always made by 50s racists...

The differences here are profound, but I'd expect somebody of your caliber to fail to see the VAST differences.

There are incredible differences, but that was not my point. My point is that its a weak argument, then or now, to say, "You don't live here, so you don't understand our problems." Its the argument of people who can't win by resorting to reason and logic, and so they're left with this.

Pretty common approach when isreal comes up too.

You must be anti-semitic to bring up Israel when tim is posting.

 

[nelsondogg]

I'm trying to decide which state was the most embarrassing this week. Was it Arizona, for passing this law? Oklahoma, for their anti-abortion laws? Or Alabama, for supporting a gubnatorial candidate who demands that you speak English or get the Hell out?Hard to decide.

Arizona also passed the birther law this week

 

[Yenrub]

Drug Kingpin: You need to gather a team and kidnap Inigo Montoya and his family.Subordinate: We can't, Arizona is getting totally badass on illegal immigrants.Drug Kingpin: Crap. OK, let's go bowling instead.

More like, COP: Those guys look shady as hell, kind of like those guys that gunned down that family last weekCOPII: I wish we had the latitude to check them out real quickCOPI: Yeah, oh well, let's go get some coffee

Pardon me but if the guys in the car truly matched the description of a murder suspect(s) wouldn’t the police have the latitude to stop and question them?I know I have been stopped and questioned several times in my life for fitting some arbitrary description of a criminal

 

[Bronco Billy]

I'm trying to decide which state was the most embarrassing this week. Was it Arizona, for passing this law? Oklahoma, for their anti-abortion laws? Or Alabama, for supporting a gubnatorial candidate who demands that you speak English or get the Hell out?Hard to decide.

Arizona also passed the birther law this week

Are you speaking to the law that reinforces the Presidential eligibility requirement in the Constitution?Kind of odd that states have to pass laws in order to get any kind of enforcement of the single most important document in the land...

 

[Bronco Billy]

Just heard that Rasmussen polls show that the AZ gov's approval rating vaulted from 40% to 56% in the time since she passed the illegal immigration control law. Damn, that's a lot of racist GOPers in AZ.

Also saw that Texas is now considering the same law.

 

[timschochet]

I love all the people in AZ pretending to know AZ's problems...

We're not talking about racism in the South in the 1950s...

Youi're right that you are not 50s racists- but I should point out that the bolded argument was always made by 50s racists...

The differences here are profound, but I'd expect somebody of your caliber to fail to see the VAST differences.

There are incredible differences, but that was not my point. My point is that its a weak argument, then or now, to say, "You don't live here, so you don't understand our problems." Its the argument of people who can't win by resorting to reason and logic, and so they're left with this.

Pretty common approach when isreal comes up too.

I have never, to the best of my knowledge, made this argument in my life, not for Israel, not for any subject. If I have, shame on me. If I can't convince somebody of the rightness of my opinion using reason and logic then my opinion has no validity, and that is the same for everyone else.

 

[LHUCKS]

Just heard that Rasmussen polls show that the AZ gov's approval rating vaulted from 40% to 56% in the time since she passed the illegal immigration control law. Damn, that's a lot of racist GOPers in AZ.Also saw that Texas is now considering the same law.

The rest of the country may do their best to ruin the state, but Arizonans will do what they can to keep what they've protected.

 

[timschochet]

Just heard that Rasmussen polls show that the AZ gov's approval rating vaulted from 40% to 56% in the time since she passed the illegal immigration control law. Damn, that's a lot of racist GOPers in AZ.Also saw that Texas is now considering the same law.

Well if it's that popular, and if Texas is going to do it, then you guys must be right. I've changed my mind.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Just heard that Rasmussen polls show that the AZ gov's approval rating vaulted from 40% to 56% in the time since she passed the illegal immigration control law. Damn, that's a lot of racist GOPers in AZ.Also saw that Texas is now considering the same law.

Well if it's that popular, and if Texas is going to do it, then you guys must be right. I've changed my mind.

The Governor of Arizona was on Greta last night (as an aside, Greta is not human... I don't know what species she is or why my wife likes her, but she is simply not human....) Greta asked point blank, with this law, if a mexican person is standing on the corner can a cop walk up to them and demand to see papers. Answer, no. There must be reasonable suspicion yada yada yada. She also mentioned that she has also signed an Executive ORder which sounded like it re-emphasizes that racial profiling in the enforcement of the law is barred by Arizona law.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Found the transcript:

Exclusive: Gov. Brewer - We're Not Going to Put Up With Insecure Borders Anymore

Thursday, April 29, 2010

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," April 28, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight, in her first national television interview since all hell broke loose, Arizona Governor Brewer is here to go "On the Record."

But first, pay very close attention to this!

(BEGIN FLASHBACK VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, D-NY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're going to toughen border security. We're going to do everything we can to make sure that we have strong border controls because it's not only a question about illegal immigration, it's a question about our security. We have to know who's coming in and out of our country.

RUDY GIULIANI, R-NY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The American people are angry that the federal government has failed to protect and secure our borders. And they're telling us, Get it done! And we will!

GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, R-CALIF.: ... secure our borders, while at the same time recognize the economic and social reality by providing guest worker programs and giving everyone citizenship who is already in the country and meet a certain criteria.

MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS., FORMER GOVERNOR/PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Of course we need to secure the border. We need to have an employment verification system with a card to identify who's here legally and not legally.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILL., THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I will make it a top priority in my first year as president not only because we have an obligation to secure our borders and get control of who comes in and out our country, not only because we have to crack down on employers who are abusing undocumented immigrants instead of hiring citizens, but because we have to finally bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.

(END FLASHBACK VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer joins us right now. Governor, I don't know if you heard the mayor and the governor, the secretary of state when she was running for office, I think that was, and President Obama when he was running. Does Arizona feel abandoned by the sort of national leaders on this issue of immigration?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R - ARIZ.: Well, we do, Greta. You know, we have been fighting this issue, this problem that's facing Arizona probably for the last 15 years. And now, since I've been governor since last January, I have written numerous letters to the administration in regards to securing our borders with absolutely no response.

So we have been facing this crisis, and it's devastating the people of Arizona. And I feel as governor I have a responsibility to protect the citizens. We've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just -- it's been outrageous.

VAN SUSTEREN: Last night, we played a sound bite going back to President Clinton, and also -- we didn't play a sound bite from President Reagan, but even President Reagan talked about strengthening the borders, and it still hasn't been done. They haven't been secured. Why do you think everybody talks about it but it hasn't been done?

BREWER: Well, I have no idea. It's very, very frustrating. And Arizona is, of course, catching the brunt of it all. It is unfortunate because it is illegal. It is their federal responsibility to secure our borders. And you know, it's not just illegal immigration. Terrorists can come across. They're devastating our ranchers down in southern Arizona -- drop houses, kidnapping, automobile accidents, extortion, drugs, the spill-over with the drug cartels. We're facing all of it.

And we're not going to put up with it any longer. And I hope that now we've got Senate bill 1070 signed and ready to go into law that we'll get somebody's attention. But it is the federal government's responsibility to secure our borders. Our states cannot sustain it.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, I don't know whether a court will declare a portion or all of your statute unconstitutional (INAUDIBLE) you know, there's one particular part of the statute that has certainly caught many people's eyes. But the PPresident of the United States, President Obama, has described it as "misguided." What's your reaction to the president's description?

BREWER: Well, you know, he has a right to say whatever he wants to say. But "misguided" -- I think he's wrong. We have a responsibility -- I have a responsibility to the people of Arizona. And I'm sure he's concerned because of the brouhaha and over-dramatic comments about racial profiling. I made perfectly clear when I signed the bill that we would not tolerate racial profiling. It's illegal.

And in an effort to alleviate everybody's concerns about that, I put out an executive order that AZ POST (ph), the Police Officer Standards and Training Commission, would set the standards of what the designations in the law would mean. You know, so we're not going to have racial profiling. We're going to mirror the federal government's law. That's all that we have done. And our law is exactly like the federal law. And if the feds won't come in and protect us, then we will come forward and protect ourselves.

We have no other choice. We have -- we have -- we have a right, Greta, to feel free in our state and to feel safe. And with what's going on, we have many, many people that feel that they are not safe.

VAN SUSTEREN: What -- what -- it's sort of an odd twist of fate, the former governor of Arizona is now our Homeland Security cabinet officer, Janet Napolitano. Have you picked up the phone to her and said, Hey, remember this problem? What can you do to help us down here in Arizona?

BREWER: No, I have not picked up the telephone. I have written her a letter, of course, and I've seen -- I saw her at a meeting. But she obviously is turning a blind eye to Arizona. She understands what the situation is. She wrote numerous letters when she was governor to the administration, looking for help and some relief.

And for her to make the comment that she made that the borders are, what was it, that the borders just as secure -- are more secure than they have ever been -- well, they've never been secure. We are a gateway for every illegal immigration and criminal element into the United States.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you think she believes that, or is that political, her statement? I mean, have things changed dramatically since she was governor (INAUDIBLE) Do you think she truly believes the borders have gotten stronger down in Arizona? Or why would she make that statement, in your opinion?

BREWER: Well, I think they don't want to address it, you know, probably politically. I believe that they want the multitudes (ph). We know politically that registration, voting numbers tend to lean towards a Democratic edge probably more than they do Republicans. And for whatever the reasons, they certainly do not address the issue in Arizona.

And it is very, very frustrating. It's interesting, you know, 70 percent of the people not only in Arizona, but 70 percent of the people throughout the United States agree that they have the responsibility to secure our borders. And you know, they've been saying it for years now that they're going to secure the borders, they're going to secure the borders, and no one secures the borders. And we live with it day in and day out, and we're not going to tolerate it anymore.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about the calls for a boycotts? There have been some cities that have suggested there (ph) be (ph) a boycott. We're going to have a member of the Los Angeles City Council on in a moment who is going to seek a boycott of LA official business from your state. What do you say to the people on boycotts?

BREWER: Well, I think that's really unfortunate that they come forward and talk about boycotting the state of Arizona for wanting the law to be upheld. The bottom line is that when they call for boycotts, then they're hurting everybody here that is legal, the citizens of Arizona. So it's an unfortunate situation.

But I will tell you, people won't want to come to Arizona if we don't have a border security measure put into place because they want to travel through Arizona, they want to bring businesses to Arizona, they want to be safe.

And it's illegal. I mean, that's the whole question. It's illegal to cross the border without having papers. And we have over a thousand illegal immigrants coming across the border a day. And of those that are apprehended, 87 percent of them have criminal records. So they're using up our school dollars. They're using up our hospital dollars. They're using up our court dollars. And they're using up our incarceration dollars.

And the feds don't even respond with the SCAT (ph) dollars, which they're also again responsible to pay for the incarceration of these people. Arizona cannot afford to take care of these people. They're illegal. They -- you know, we need to secure the borders and then we need to address some kind of immigration reform. And I don't support amnesty, but we need to address the issue of how we're going to be able to keep the commerce open between Mexico. Mexico is our largest trade partner here in the state, and so we want to have a good commerce relation. But we can't sustain the illegal activity and the services that they demand.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you -- is it your -- let me ask you a situation. I'm trying to understand, you know, the breadth of your statute a little bit. I've read it, but I want to try to understand the interpretation. If someone is standing on a street corner, not doing anything sinister, anything suspicious, just standing there, under your statute, may a police officer come up and say, Produce proof that you have a green card or that you're a citizen? Can they just come up and demand that information?

BREWER: No, absolutely not. There has to be reasonable suspicion, you know, probable cause. It's very clear. The hysteria and the misinformation that has been put out has just been alarming, to say the least. Certainly, if there's reasonable suspicion, just like currently, they would ask for identification. And it is a federal law, of course, to -- if you're an immigrant, you're to carry your documentation with you. If you don't have it and if you are arrested, then you will have to prove that you are a citizen. And if you're not, you will be deported.

VAN SUSTEREN: How about -- any other governors call you up and say, you know, dumb idea, great idea? Any other governors standing by you? Or even opposing you?

BREWER: Well, you know, I spoke to Governor Schwarzenegger today, and I have a call in to Governor Perry. I spoke with Governor Richardson because we are the border governors.

VAN SUSTEREN: What did Richardson -- what did Richardson and Schwarzenegger have -- those governors have to say about it?

BREWER: Well, certainly, Governor Schwarzenegger understands the frustration that we have with the federal government. You know, it seems like they just never do the job that they're supposed to do. And all of us have been impacted with the illegal immigration and not having the borders secured and...

VAN SUSTEREN: And Governor Richardson?

BREWER: ... giving us the drug cartels -- Governor Richardson called and we had a nice conversation. I think he had a little bit of hesitation, but he understands the issue that we're facing, certainly.

VAN SUSTEREN: Does he support...

BREWER: I mean, anybody that would come to...

VAN SUSTEREN: Does he support...

BREWER: Anybody would...

VAN SUSTEREN: Does Governor Richardson support you in this?

BREWER: I don't know. You'd have to ask him.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, then, we will. And of course, this issue certainly is not going away. Governor, I hope you'll come back as we continue to follow this story. Thank you, Governor.

BREWER: Thank you, Greta.

 

[timschochet]

The Governor of Arizona was on Greta last night (as an aside, Greta is not human... I don't know what species she is or why my wife likes her, but she is simply not human....) Greta asked point blank, with this law, if a mexican person is standing on the corner can a cop walk up to them and demand to see papers. Answer, no. There must be reasonable suspicion yada yada yada. She also mentioned that she has also signed an Executive ORder which sounded like it re-emphasizes that racial profiling in the enforcement of the law is barred by Arizona law.

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

 

[timschochet]

From the Tucson Citizen:

Do two wrongs make a right? Of course not.

Then why is this fallacy being used to justify enforcement of SB 1070?

As an American citizen, do the police – federal, state or local – have the legal authority to detain me and force me to prove my citizenship (other than at the border)?

Absolutely not.

Yet proponents of SB 1070 seem to be making this argument when they repeatedly make statements to the effect of “You don’t have anything to worry about if you’re in the country legally.”

Really?

Since a person in this country illegally doesn’t turn Na’vi blue when they cross the border, it is exceedingly difficult to tell an illegal immigrant from a legal one, or from a citizen, for that matter.

So how is a police officer to tell? The Arizona Police Officers Standards and Training Board is attempting to develop the enforcement training standards for this bill, using federal immigration enforcement standards as a guide (assuming Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano allow DHS to aid Arizona in developing the standards).

But no matter the probable cause standards AZPOST develops, at some point an officer will be forced to demand and a citizen forced to produce proof of citizenship under this law.

“So what?” some have argued. “If you’re a citizen, you show your papers and away you go. What’s the problem?”

Is that what liberty has come to in America? You get to be free as long as you prove to a police agency you’re a free American?

Do freedom-loving Americans not get the gross contradiction, irony and hypocrisy in that?

Is the problem of illegal immigration so horrendous that we must give up some of our freedom in order to free ourselves of illegal immigrants?

I don’t think it is.

Using some fallacious reasoning of my own – I’ll argue that SB 1070 puts Arizona on a slippery slope.

Since I’m a citizen (and white) I have nothing to worry about under SB 1070. If I’m ever challenged, I’ll show my Arizona driver’s license and be sent on my way.

And since I’m a law-abiding citizen (unless you count speeding, in which case I’m only a mostly law-abiding citizen) I should have no problems with any of the following:

•I don’t do drugs, so I’m fine with the government requiring me to submit to random drug testing to prove it.

•I don’t use my phone to conduct criminal business, so I’m OK with the government listening in on my phone calls.

•I don’t use my home for illegal purposes so I’m happy to have the police stop by any time and search it just to make sure.

•Likewise, I don’t use my car to conduct illegal business, so I’m fine if the police stop me and search it whenever they want.

•I don’t carry drugs or automatic weapons or anything else illegal on me when I’m out in public, so I have no problem if a police officer wants to stop me and pat me down now and again.

Of course, you will argue, I’m being silly and unreasonable with the above. There are Constitutional amendments that protect me from having to submit to such police inquisitions.

I would have to have acted in some overt way that provides a police agency probable cause to do any of the above, and with most of the above, the police would need a court order to conduct such searches.

But what overt act must you commit to be suspected of being in the country illegally, irrespective of your race or appearance? Schlepping through the desert in the middle of the night north of the border comes to mind but what if someone has run a red light in Mesa? Are there behaviors that illegal immigrants exhibit that legal immigrants and citizens don’t?

Absent an overt act, how will an officer develop “reasonable suspicion” without regard to the person’s race or ethnicity?

And if the officer develops a suspicion, under this law you must produce your papers or be locked up until such time as you prove your citizenship or legal residency status.

But since all cops are human and therefore errors will be made, which citizens are most likely to be wrongly forced to prove their citizenship under this law? Hispanic citizens.

ANY citizen who gets caught up in that has lost their liberty. And a loss of liberty for one is a loss for all.

To argue that because they are citizens they have nothing to fear if they are asked for their papers is an outrageous distortion of what it means to be a free American.

It’s not this bill’s attempt to resolve the illegal immigration problem that I object to, it’s SB 1070’s affront to liberty that offends me.

There are other, better ways to solve this problem.

Tearing up the Constitution is not one of them

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The Governor of Arizona was on Greta last night (as an aside, Greta is not human... I don't know what species she is or why my wife likes her, but she is simply not human....) Greta asked point blank, with this law, if a mexican person is standing on the corner can a cop walk up to them and demand to see papers. Answer, no. There must be reasonable suspicion yada yada yada. She also mentioned that she has also signed an Executive ORder which sounded like it re-emphasizes that racial profiling in the enforcement of the law is barred by Arizona law.

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every person within a states jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. How does a law that takes already standing federal law and makes it state law mimic it violate that responsibility?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There must be reasonable suspicion

I'm not a lawyer and I've only skimmed most of this thread, so I apologize if this is a dumb/previously answered question, but is "reasonable suspicion" one of those phrases that has a more precise legal definition than a layperson would understand? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" from a legal perspective (either in general, or specifically in this case where it refers to a reasonable suspicion of being here illegally). Or is it as vague as it sounds to someone like me?

 

[Sammy3469]

The Governor of Arizona was on Greta last night (as an aside, Greta is not human... I don't know what species she is or why my wife likes her, but she is simply not human....) Greta asked point blank, with this law, if a mexican person is standing on the corner can a cop walk up to them and demand to see papers. Answer, no. There must be reasonable suspicion yada yada yada. She also mentioned that she has also signed an Executive ORder which sounded like it re-emphasizes that racial profiling in the enforcement of the law is barred by Arizona law.

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every person within a states jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. How does a law that takes already standing federal law and makes it state law mimic it violate that responsibility?

lol

 

[Yankee23Fan]

From the Tucson Citizen:

Do two wrongs make a right? Of course not.

Then why is this fallacy being used to justify enforcement of SB 1070?

As an American citizen, do the police – federal, state or local – have the legal authority to detain me and force me to prove my citizenship (other than at the border)?

Absolutely not.

This is actually not entirely true. The are federal laws which require certain identification by immigrants. Further, there is a presumption in most cases that if you have a valid driver's license that you comply and further inquiry is not necessary. Again, your continued latching on to hyperbole makes you look worse then foolish. This story you posted is a worthless voice in this particular policy debate. Your pasting of it is as well.

 

[dickey moe]

The Governor of Arizona was on Greta last night (as an aside, Greta is not human... I don't know what species she is or why my wife likes her, but she is simply not human....) Greta asked point blank, with this law, if a mexican person is standing on the corner can a cop walk up to them and demand to see papers. Answer, no. There must be reasonable suspicion yada yada yada. She also mentioned that she has also signed an Executive ORder which sounded like it re-emphasizes that racial profiling in the enforcement of the law is barred by Arizona law.

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every person within a states jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. How does a law that takes already standing federal law and makes it state law mimic it violate that responsibility?

This is the key question that keeps getting swept under the rug.I me some Yankee23Fan.

 

[timschochet]

The Governor of Arizona was on Greta last night (as an aside, Greta is not human... I don't know what species she is or why my wife likes her, but she is simply not human....) Greta asked point blank, with this law, if a mexican person is standing on the corner can a cop walk up to them and demand to see papers. Answer, no. There must be reasonable suspicion yada yada yada. She also mentioned that she has also signed an Executive ORder which sounded like it re-emphasizes that racial profiling in the enforcement of the law is barred by Arizona law.

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every person within a states jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. How does a law that takes already standing federal law and makes it state law mimic it violate that responsibility?

Because the Federal government does not apply this law to people already residing in the United States. If it ever attempted to do so, that would also be a violation of the Constitution, because it would unfairly target Latinos, just as this law will do.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

There must be reasonable suspicion

I'm not a lawyer and I've only skimmed most of this thread, so I apologize if this is a dumb/previously answered question, but is "reasonable suspicion" one of those phrases that has a more precise legal definition than a layperson would understand? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" from a legal perspective (either in general, or specifically in this case where it refers to a reasonable suspicion of being here illegally). Or is it as vague as it sounds to someone like me?

Yes, no and yes. There can be statutory reasons that it is hit, and there can be officer experience that it is hit.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The Governor of Arizona was on Greta last night (as an aside, Greta is not human... I don't know what species she is or why my wife likes her, but she is simply not human....) Greta asked point blank, with this law, if a mexican person is standing on the corner can a cop walk up to them and demand to see papers. Answer, no. There must be reasonable suspicion yada yada yada. She also mentioned that she has also signed an Executive ORder which sounded like it re-emphasizes that racial profiling in the enforcement of the law is barred by Arizona law.

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every person within a states jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. How does a law that takes already standing federal law and makes it state law mimic it violate that responsibility?

Because the Federal government does not apply this law to people already residing in the United States. If it ever attempted to do so, that would also be a violation of the Constitution, because it would unfairly target Latinos, just as this law will do.

Does not apply what law?

 

[timschochet]

The Governor of Arizona was on Greta last night (as an aside, Greta is not human... I don't know what species she is or why my wife likes her, but she is simply not human....) Greta asked point blank, with this law, if a mexican person is standing on the corner can a cop walk up to them and demand to see papers. Answer, no. There must be reasonable suspicion yada yada yada. She also mentioned that she has also signed an Executive ORder which sounded like it re-emphasizes that racial profiling in the enforcement of the law is barred by Arizona law.

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every person within a states jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. How does a law that takes already standing federal law and makes it state law mimic it violate that responsibility?

Because the Federal government does not apply this law to people already residing in the United States. If it ever attempted to do so, that would also be a violation of the Constitution, because it would unfairly target Latinos, just as this law will do.

Does not apply what law?

Outside of the border, the federal govt. does not go around targeting people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they might be illegal aliens and demanding to see proof of citizenship. If they did, that would be unconstitutional too. That's why this whole argument that this law is only applying federal standards is so bogus. Those standards are applied at the border, nowhere else.

 

[timschochet]

From the Tucson Citizen:

Do two wrongs make a right? Of course not.

Then why is this fallacy being used to justify enforcement of SB 1070?

As an American citizen, do the police – federal, state or local – have the legal authority to detain me and force me to prove my citizenship (other than at the border)?

Absolutely not.

This is actually not entirely true. The are federal laws which require certain identification by immigrants. Further, there is a presumption in most cases that if you have a valid driver's license that you comply and further inquiry is not necessary. Again, your continued latching on to hyperbole makes you look worse then foolish. This story you posted is a worthless voice in this particular policy debate. Your pasting of it is as well.

Not sure what "worse than foolish" is, but I'm proud to be it anyhow. The article again points out that there is no way to apply "reasonable suspicion" without targeting Latinos. And again, your arguments about federal laws are inapplicable, because they are not enforced except at the border. You can continue to dismiss all of these arguments if you want, but I have a very strong feeling the courts won't, and that this law will be thrown out for reasons that you consider irrelevant and "worthless".

 

[timschochet]

I want to mention something here which I suspect some of my opponents in this thread may agree with me on. The President of Mexico, Mr. Calderon, has come out against this new law, condemning it as racist.

It is extremely hypocritical for the president of Mexico to condemn any action taken by the United States with regard to illegal immigrants. The government of Mexico is extremely corrupt, and they have done nothing over the years to alleviate the economic problems there that cause so many of its citizens to want to come here. Furthermore, we don't come close to treating our immigrants, legal or illegal, to the way Mexico treats its immigrants, and we never will (hopefully.) Though I am very much against this new law, I have only one response to President Calderon:

Shut up.

 

[The Z Machine]

Does the federal statute contain the exact same wording as the AZ statute?

Has the federal statute ever been challenged on equal protection grounds for cases outside of a border crossing?

 

[RCon]

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

Here's a question that I'm not sure I've seen you answer. Let's assume for the sake of argument that A) there is an illegal immigration problem that needs to be solved, and B) completely open borders isn't going to happen. How would you solve the problem?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Outside of the border, the federal govt. does not go around targeting people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they might be illegal aliens and demanding to see proof of citizenship. If they did, that would be unconstitutional too. That's why this whole argument that this law is only applying federal standards is so bogus. Those standards are applied at the border, nowhere else.

First, they can. But like any other law enforcement effort, the locations targeted for enforcement are where the actual enforcement will do something. Similarly, there are no DUI check stops on cul-de sacs in where there are two houses in a summer community during the winter months.The federal government enforcing federal law is not unconstitutional unless the law has already been found unconstitutional. I'm not aware of any such finding.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

From the Tucson Citizen:

Do two wrongs make a right? Of course not.

Then why is this fallacy being used to justify enforcement of SB 1070?

As an American citizen, do the police – federal, state or local – have the legal authority to detain me and force me to prove my citizenship (other than at the border)?

Absolutely not.

This is actually not entirely true. The are federal laws which require certain identification by immigrants. Further, there is a presumption in most cases that if you have a valid driver's license that you comply and further inquiry is not necessary. Again, your continued latching on to hyperbole makes you look worse then foolish. This story you posted is a worthless voice in this particular policy debate. Your pasting of it is as well.

Not sure what "worse than foolish" is, but I'm proud to be it anyhow. The article again points out that there is no way to apply "reasonable suspicion" without targeting Latinos. And again, your arguments about federal laws are inapplicable, because they are not enforced except at the border. You can continue to dismiss all of these arguments if you want, but I have a very strong feeling the courts won't, and that this law will be thrown out for reasons that you consider irrelevant and "worthless".

The article is crap and does nothing to review the legal term reasonable suspicion, instead resorting to political talking points.

 

[Neofight]

won't survive challenge and thus give rise to the cry of liberal, activist courts. political whores (i mean local elected officials who knew this would happen) can say ' we tried but the courts overruled. politicos get re-elected. courts catch ####... law takes a hit (and not from a bong). more people hold up signs with words spelled wrong...i can't wait for jesus hernandez to become president of the usa. never thought i'd see a black man become president (i'm old enough to remember the "white's only', 'black only' signs and never understood the hate - in 1996 a white life guard at lake lanier islands allowed a black man to drown and said 'they don't pay me to save those people' - look it up.). i voted for obama and would vote for anyone - including a left handed, one eyed, muslim gay - if they were the best candidate.america is a wonderful place. we are full of righteous hate and love, disdain and acceptance, inclusion, exclusion, stupidity, ignorance, intellect, compassion and insensitivity (did i say stupidity). yet most everyone in the world would die to be here. we provide a chance - no promise, but a chance - to be better - to do better. when we lose 'that', we lose what makes us great. a bunch of stupid and/or old, stuck-up white people are just going to have to get the sand out of their ######s and stop making pearls.from a old-style repub, gun owning, cwp carrying (including the wife), stupid hating, willing ignorant educator, tea bag loathing, haven't voted for a repub since 2000 individual.last frivolous purchase was a glock 17 (wanted a .45 but the wife can't handle this - no way with a .45). next a saiga - clip fed semi-auto 12 guage - zombies cringe in fear... the people of color don't scare me - it is the stupid, white pieces of #### who didn't take advantage of their opportunity that worry me... and so you don't think i only dislike white people (of which i am one), white people have no monopoly on stupidity or lack of maximizing opportunity. ymmv...

Is this from the new Gil Scott-Heron album, as reinvisioned by Tom Tancredo and set to lyrics by Rush Limbaugh sung by... you?

you obviously have not read this post or any of my other posts (and by 'read' i mean understood). neither tancredo or limbaugh would be welcome in my home. you are most likely in the same category... i'm still trying to decide if your post is based on stupidity, ignorance or lack of reading comprehension. education is this day and age is so 'hit and miss' so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. additional posts will provide clarity...

I do believe you left out a few options there, Gil. Nonetheless, I await said posts breathlessly. The revolution may not be televised, but I'm sure we can catch it on youtube. Keep up the good fight!

 

[timschochet]

She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.

Here's a question that I'm not sure I've seen you answer. Let's assume for the sake of argument that A) there is an illegal immigration problem that needs to be solved, and B) completely open borders isn't going to happen. How would you solve the problem?

A fine question. Personally, I would agree to a compromise along the lines that was proposed in 2007: tighten restrictions at the borders, created a guest worker program, and provide a path to citizenship for those already here.

 

[The Z Machine]

I want to mention something here which I suspect some of my opponents in this thread may agree with me on. The President of Mexico, Mr. Calderon, has come out against this new law, condemning it as racist. It is extremely hypocritical for the president of Mexico to condemn any action taken by the United States with regard to illegal immigrants. The government of Mexico is extremely corrupt, and they have done nothing over the years to alleviate the economic problems there that cause so many of its citizens to want to come here. Furthermore, we don't come close to treating our immigrants, legal or illegal, to the way Mexico treats its immigrants, and we never will (hopefully.) Though I am very much against this new law, I have only one response to President Calderon:Shut up.

Calderón has ever right to speak out against this law. He's speaking with the voice of his citizens here. It may be hypocritical, but it's the voice of his country.

 

[timschochet]

Yankee, are you going to be the Academy Awards draft? We need you in that GB

 

[timschochet]

I want to mention something here which I suspect some of my opponents in this thread may agree with me on. The President of Mexico, Mr. Calderon, has come out against this new law, condemning it as racist. It is extremely hypocritical for the president of Mexico to condemn any action taken by the United States with regard to illegal immigrants. The government of Mexico is extremely corrupt, and they have done nothing over the years to alleviate the economic problems there that cause so many of its citizens to want to come here. Furthermore, we don't come close to treating our immigrants, legal or illegal, to the way Mexico treats its immigrants, and we never will (hopefully.) Though I am very much against this new law, I have only one response to President Calderon:Shut up.

Calderón has ever right to speak out against this law. He's speaking with the voice of his citizens here. It may be hypocritical, but it's the voice of his country.

He absolutely has the right to do so. And I have the right to tell him to shut up.

 

[videoguy505]

Does the federal statute contain the exact same wording as the AZ statute?

IIRC, there is no wording in the AZ law, it just says "pursuant to US CODE [whatever number the federal law is]" a lot.

 

[Christo]

Not reading 18 pages, so I don't know if this has been posted yet:

Why Arizona Drew a Line

On Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. It is any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/...l?th&emc=thYeah, yeah. I know our resident lefty wingnuts are going to immediately jump on this guy's credentials. But if you take off the blinders for a minute he makes some solid arguments.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does the federal statute contain the exact same wording as the AZ statute?Has the federal statute ever been challenged on equal protection grounds for cases outside of a border crossing?

For about 50 years it's been illegal for immigrants to not have ID as per federal law:TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VII > § 1304Prev | Next § 1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting(a) Preparation; contents The Attorney General and the Secretary of State jointly are authorized and directed to prepare forms for the registration of aliens under section 1301 of this title, and the Attorney General is authorized and directed to prepare forms for the registration and fingerprinting of aliens under section 1302 of this title. Such forms shall contain inquiries with respect to (1) the date and place of entry of the alien into the United States; (2) activities in which he has been and intends to be engaged; (3) the length of time he expects to remain in the United States; (4) the police and criminal record, if any, of such alien; and (5) such additional matters as may be prescribed. (b) Confidential nature All registration and fingerprint records made under the provisions of this subchapter shall be confidential, and shall be made available only (1) pursuant to section 1357 (f)(2) of this title, and (2) to such persons or agencies as may be designated by the Attorney General. © Information under oath Every person required to apply for the registration of himself or another under this subchapter shall submit under oath the information required for such registration. Any person authorized under regulations issued by the Attorney General to register aliens under this subchapter shall be authorized to administer oaths for such purpose. (d) Certificate of alien registration or alien receipt card Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General. (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. (f) Alien’s social security account number Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General is authorized to require any alien to provide the alien’s social security account number for purposes of inclusion in any record of the alien maintained by the Attorney General or the Service.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Not reading 18 pages, so I don't know if this has been posted yet:

Why Arizona Drew a Line

Thanks for posting Christo. You're right, he makes some great points. It was helpful to read historical context that refutes some of the criticisms of this law.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

This was the only part I found uncompelling.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does the federal statute contain the exact same wording as the AZ statute?

IIRC, there is no wording in the AZ law, it just says "pursuant to US CODE [whatever number the federal law is]" a lot.

It references those portions of the federal code that it codifies as state law, and those portions that superscede any state power. It also references the Arizona and United States Constitutions, and now on top of it we have an Executive Order addressing "racial profiling" issues already on the books in Arizona even though there are specifically and rather clearly addressed in the body of the law itself.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I want to mention something here which I suspect some of my opponents in this thread may agree with me on. The President of Mexico, Mr. Calderon, has come out against this new law, condemning it as racist.

It is extremely hypocritical for the president of Mexico to condemn any action taken by the United States with regard to illegal immigrants. The government of Mexico is extremely corrupt, and they have done nothing over the years to alleviate the economic problems there that cause so many of its citizens to want to come here. Furthermore, we don't come close to treating our immigrants, legal or illegal, to the way Mexico treats its immigrants, and we never will (hopefully.) Though I am very much against this new law, I have only one response to President Calderon:

Shut up.

Calderón has ever right to speak out against this law. He's speaking with the voice of his citizens here. It may be hypocritical, but it's the voice of his country.

Someone needs to ask him how he manages his southern border...

 

[videoguy505]

Thanks Christo.

Since you're a better lawyerguy than Woz, if you pop back in the thread, a couple of questions I have....

In the article it talks about the state being permitted to enact laws regarding illegal immigration without pre-empting federal law, as long as the to do not conflict. Is the same action being banned, but with different penalties, a conflict? If fed law says something to the effect of "an alien must carry a green card at all times, or be penalized $500", and state law says "an alien must carry a green card at all times or face a $1000 penalty on the first offense, and 30 days imprisionment on the second", are those laws in conflict?

The article also says the most common time it will come into play is a traffic stop. The law reads that any time during a "lawful contact" that the officer develops "reasonable suspicion"... is there a legal definition for "lawful contact"? Does it mean an already existing interaction (ie traffic stop/interviewing a suspect/investigating a crime), or, can lawful contact be initiated by the police (ie "I see a guy standing outside the home depot, I'm going to go make contact")?

 

[timschochet]

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

If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious, because we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional. We do not and never have had a society where we demand to see proof of one's citizenship not in connection with some other crime. He also states that there won't be any racial profiling because the law states there won't be, which is pretty absurd when you think about it. At least one Arizona sheriff has stated publicly that there is no way to enforce this law without racial profiling. He states that "reasonable suspicion" will be used in situations like stopping a van for speeding. But it is already law in Arizona that if the police catch someone in a crime, they can investigate proof of citizenship- therefore, why is this new law necessary? Nowhere in this new law does it define "reasonable suspicion" as being limited to stopping someone suspected of a crime in progress- in fact, it doesn't define "reasonable suspicion" at all. It is up to us fill in the gaps.The sort of arguments this guy makes are only going to be convincing to those who already want to be convinced. I don't think they will stand up in court.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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

If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious, because we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional.

You keep saying this yet I have no idea what you mean. The federal government enforcing federal law within the territory of the United States is not an unconstitutional act unless the law attempting be to be enforced has already been found unconstitutional. Many immigration regulations have been part of the federal code for 50 years. Many were changed a decade ago. Where do you get this stuff?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

won't survive challenge and thus give rise to the cry of liberal, activist courts. political whores (i mean local elected officials who knew this would happen) can say ' we tried but the courts overruled. politicos get re-elected. courts catch ####... law takes a hit (and not from a bong). more people hold up signs with words spelled wrong...i can't wait for jesus hernandez to become president of the usa. never thought i'd see a black man become president (i'm old enough to remember the "white's only', 'black only' signs and never understood the hate - in 1996 a white life guard at lake lanier islands allowed a black man to drown and said 'they don't pay me to save those people' - look it up.). i voted for obama and would vote for anyone - including a left handed, one eyed, muslim gay - if they were the best candidate.america is a wonderful place. we are full of righteous hate and love, disdain and acceptance, inclusion, exclusion, stupidity, ignorance, intellect, compassion and insensitivity (did i say stupidity). yet most everyone in the world would die to be here. we provide a chance - no promise, but a chance - to be better - to do better. when we lose 'that', we lose what makes us great. a bunch of stupid and/or old, stuck-up white people are just going to have to get the sand out of their ######s and stop making pearls.from a old-style repub, gun owning, cwp carrying (including the wife), stupid hating, willing ignorant educator, tea bag loathing, haven't voted for a repub since 2000 individual.last frivolous purchase was a glock 17 (wanted a .45 but the wife can't handle this - no way with a .45). next a saiga - clip fed semi-auto 12 guage - zombies cringe in fear... the people of color don't scare me - it is the stupid, white pieces of #### who didn't take advantage of their opportunity that worry me... and so you don't think i only dislike white people (of which i am one), white people have no monopoly on stupidity or lack of maximizing opportunity. ymmv...

wikkid pissah alias?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

in fact, it doesn't define "reasonable suspicion" at all. It is up to us fill in the gaps.

Another baseless statement. There is s ton of fedearl precedent and I'm going to assume a decent amount of Arizona state precedent on just what exactly is reasonable suspicion. You don't have to define it at all.

 

[Christo]

Thanks Christo.Since you're a better lawyerguy than Woz, if you pop back in the thread, a couple of questions I have....In the article it talks about the state being permitted to enact laws regarding illegal immigration without pre-empting federal law, as long as the to do not conflict. Is the same action being banned, but with different penalties, a conflict? If fed law says something to the effect of "an alien must carry a green card at all times, or be penalized $500", and state law says "an alien must carry a green card at all times or face a $1000 penalty on the first offense, and 30 days imprisionment on the second", are those laws in conflict?The article also says the most common time it will come into play is a traffic stop. The law reads that any time during a "lawful contact" that the officer develops "reasonable suspicion"... is there a legal definition for "lawful contact"? Does it mean an already existing interaction (ie traffic stop/interviewing a suspect/investigating a crime), or, can lawful contact be initiated by the police (ie "I see a guy standing outside the home depot, I'm going to go make contact")?

(1) No. The pre-emption doctrine provides that a state cannot make something illegal that is legal under federal law or legal that is illegal under federal law. There is another doctrine called complete pre-emption that provides that under certain circumstances a state cannot enact any laws in a certain area. But that does not apply here.(2) I assume that means there must be reasonable suspicion to make the stop in the first place. So in effect, there are two reasonable suspicion hurdles that must be overcome--one for the stop and one for checking immigration status.

 

[videoguy505]

Nowhere in this new law does it define "reasonable suspicion" as being limited to stopping someone suspected of a crime in progress- in fact, it doesn't define "reasonable suspicion" at all. It is up to us fill in the gaps.

"reasonable suspicion" is defined by the courts already.

HTH.

 

[timschochet]

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

If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious, because we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional.

You keep saying this yet I have no idea what you mean. The federal government enforcing federal law within the territory of the United States is not an unconstitutional act unless the law attempting be to be enforced has already been found unconstitutional. Many immigration regulations have been part of the federal code for 50 years. Many were changed a decade ago. Where do you get this stuff?

It's pretty simple. If the ICE started going to Home Depots around the country and arresting people lingering there based on the "reasonable susoicion" that they were illegal immigrants, that would be challenged as unconstitutional. Now, the ICE could argue that they have the right to do this based on federal law. But I believe the courts would ultimately find that either this application of the law is unconstitutional, or that the law itself is unconstituitional. Which is one reason the ICE doesn't do this. My point is that, even though you are correct that these federal laws are on the books, they have never been applied in the manner that Arizona now wants to apply them- meaning stopping people already here based on the reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants.

 

[Christo]

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

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

I stopped reading here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Does the federal statute contain the exact same wording as the AZ statute?Has the federal statute ever been challenged on equal protection grounds for cases outside of a border crossing?

For about 50 years it's been illegal for immigrants to not have ID as per federal law:

I don't see the authority of the government to detain a citizen until they can prove they are not an alien in that federal statute. Nor do I see that this requires law enforcement officers to request this information any time during "'lawful contact' that the officer develops 'reasonable suspicion'".

 

[timschochet]

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

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

I stopped reading here.

Well good for you. Nice to know you're willing to listen to arguments that oppose your POV.