This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There is a difference and no I am not ok with citizens telling the police how to do their jobs. The police chief and his staff should be giving orders to the policemen. Not sure a police officer would take direction from me over his superior though
You seem convinced that the AZ law is unconstitutional from what I've read.
I never wrote that. I think we're talking about two different things. You (and Christo) seem to be preoccupied with whether or not individual police officers can be sued. My concern is that the law encourages people to sue if the law is not properly enforced, and since we all seem to agree that how this law is going to be enforced is vague, I think the result will be a whole heap of lawsuits, at great cost to the State of Arizona. My point had nothing to do with whether or not it would be the police officer who was sued, or a chief of police, or other law enforcement agency. In the end, it is the Arizona taxpayer who will flip the bill fighting these lawsuits.
Anyone can file any suit anywhere. There a difference between being able to file a complaint and having an actual justicible claim that would survive a motion to dismiss or summary judgment
I think it will be ruled unconstitutional since its so badly worded and vague on how it will actually work in practice, but I really have no clue. There's really no way it's effective in practice at stemming illegal immigration without racial profiling that I can see.
I'm curious if anyone's gonna reply to this. I agree with Bottomfeeder- sure as heck sounds like Joe Shmoe can sue a cop ("official ... of this state") for not enforcing the law vigorously enough ("adopts or implements ... a practice that limits or restricts the enforcement ... to less than the full extent permitted").
It's been replied to for about three pages now.
I didn't see it. Post #?
Okay, thanks for that.And actually, I am on the enforcement side first and would love to have a guest/seasonal worker program and wouldn't be completely opposed to some path to citizenship for the current illegals and expanded immigration overall. But I will never support any of that until the enforcement happens first, already been down the enforcement happens in the future road. I think a majority would be okay with that same position, but I have absolutely nothing to back that up other than my opinion. So when you say my side won't agree to a path to citizenship I think you are misreading what the majority (I know, there are a minority that are just against it because of skin color) would go along with IF enforcement came first.Yes. When you put things in that perspective, I absolutely agree. Let me go a step further, even. Many of the people on my "side" are disingenous. They will never admit in public what they really want, especially the politicians. They want amnesty and they don't really want to tighten the borders. That is the truth. But they won't tell you that, because they know the majority of Americans are very much against it. I can afford to be honest about this because I'm just an internet poster, not a politician, and I know my views on this issue are not popular and don't really give a ####. But politicians who privately agree with me (and there's a lot of them) are all terrified of your side, which is the majority, so they will continue to lie to you. But you already know this.And this is the crux of it Tim.Just to put it in one perspective by using an issue that I have seen you discuss before so maybe you can understand where people on my side are coming from. Israel agreed in the 90's to pretty much everything the Palestinians wanted other than the right of return and instead of peace they got the fatwa (I think that is the correct term). So should Israel now turn around and give up more land for the future promise of peace? Or should they make the Palestinians show that they are serious and will follow through first?I know the 2 situations aren't the same, but do you kind of see the point I am trying to make? One side in this debate has recent history to back up what they claim and the other side has vague promises of future actions that have been agree to in the past but never followed through on.
Isn't this one of those "be careful what you ask for" type things though? They can't be so short sighted that they don't see that possibility and if they are, well, that's their issue. Right?
I could be misreading it, I admit. It wouldn't be the first time. But among those who won't accept amnesty, I don't think that skin color is that big an issue among most. I think, instead, it's a greater sense of right and wrong. These illegals broke the law coming here, and therefore are in the wrong. Why should they be rewarded for it? That's how the argument goes, and if you isolate this argument as purely a matter of justice, it seems unanswerable.
I could say that about the entire law. But it does affect me, though I don't live in Arizona.
I agree people feel that way now, but I also think most are pragmatic enough that they know it would be disruptive for many border economies if we deported all the illegals currently here. All it would take is a few national news stories of mother being dragged away from young children in tears for people to accept amnesty (the PR battle that someone mentioned earlier). So while some will never accept it I think there would be enough to swing the majority to your side of the issue if enforcement takes place first. :brokenrecord:
Exactly, so why bring it up? It's always a possible consequence with any law that is created.
Because this law encourages it in the law itself. That's pretty unique, don't you think?
I don't think you'll ever get it. It's either agree to a compromise that includes a path to citizenship and hope that the politicians are honest about addressing the borders, or nothing at all.
Well they have similar concerns, since they are a border state as well (though that border is with Texas- but if you ask any Oklahoman, this might be as bad or worse).Just heard on C-Span that Oklahoma is looking to adopt the same law as Arizona.
Which leads to laws like this and if other states start following suit and the PR is handled wrong we might end up with just the enfocement and no amnesty.Sad thing is, because it won't be addressed until it becomes a huge problem in people's minds whatever is done will be a huge over reaction on the part of the politicians.
Not a chance in hell that passes in CO. Sanctuary policy has been practiced widely on a state and local level - in fact, it is openly promoted by leaders here like the Gov & the mayor of Denver. It would appear we will be having a significant influx in immigrant population in the very near future (that is unless odds-on future Gov and current Denver mayor John Hickenlooper keeps stepping in his #### like he has several times in the past couple of weeks).Just heard on C-Span that Oklahoma is looking to adopt the same law as Arizona.
If that's the only option, then why would those arguing for stricter enforcement bother to compromise? We've done that before, and we already know the outcome, which is that the politicians won't be honest and won't enforce the law. All that does is kick the can down the road a few years, where we're in the exact same situation arguing about how to handle the new group of "illegals currently in the country".
Not really, nope. Feel free to check back in at page 27 or so and I'll give you a rundown.
I have no answer for you. The politicians will tell you, "Oh but we mean it THIS time." I think they're lying; they want what I want.
And that's exactly why the compromise failed last time, and you can't really blame the tighter controls crowd. "Fool me once, shame on me..." and all that. That group is right to demand enforcement first.
It would be easier to sell this if it hadn't already been tried. Any solution that involves amnesty without consequences is not acceptable. Look at the results from the legislation enacted in 1986. http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/ins1986amnesty.html Allowing illegal immigrants to benifit from breaking laws simply encourages more to do so in the future. Come up with a way to stop it from happening again and I could get behind the idea.
Not sure if this is true. While some cities such as Denver have taken on the sanctuary attitude, there have been several anti illegal immigrant laws passed in the state over the last 5-6 years. I know at least one Gubernatorial candidate has announced he would sign a law like Arizona's if elected. Given the poll number re: this law I could see it happening.Not a chance in hell that passes in CO. Sanctuary policy has been practiced widely on a state and local level - in fact, it is openly promoted by leaders here like the Gov & the mayor of Denver. It would appear we will be having a significant influx in immigrant population in the very near future (that is unless odds-on future Gov and current Denver mayor John Hickenlooper keeps stepping in his #### like he has several times in the past couple of weeks).Just heard on C-Span that Oklahoma is looking to adopt the same law as Arizona.
And the Republican party continues to commit long-term national suicide...Not sure if this is true. While some cities such as Denver have taken on the sanctuary attitude, there have been several anti illegal immigrant laws passed in the state over the last 5-6 years. I know at least one Gubernatorial candidate has announced he would sign a law like Arizona's if elected. Given the poll number re: this law I could see it happening.Not a chance in hell that passes in CO. Sanctuary policy has been practiced widely on a state and local level - in fact, it is openly promoted by leaders here like the Gov & the mayor of Denver. It would appear we will be having a significant influx in immigrant population in the very near future (that is unless odds-on future Gov and current Denver mayor John Hickenlooper keeps stepping in his #### like he has several times in the past couple of weeks).Just heard on C-Span that Oklahoma is looking to adopt the same law as Arizona.
Exactly, this is the position I have taken in this thread.
So? I am not challenging your professional judgment, just trying to understand why this gets tossed out. Contrary to videoguys assertion it has not been answered at least in a way to me. Christo did clear up, sort of, that the police officer himself has protections in this case, but that doesn't protect the police department, etc. To be clear I'm assuming that the resident observed that the officer did not, in his eyes pursue on multiple occasions to "THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW" an action against someone that was of questionable status for whatever reason you like where whatever legal requirements for such actions were met. To fill in the blanks there was no other police investigation that such action would have thwarted, and the action was certainly feasible - just not done. Why is this tossed out?
Agreed. We're arguing the same point.
So you are by this statement alone opposed to this bill because that is exactly the point of it. It requires that police departments and police officers always pursue a specific policy with a few spelled out exceptions. Citizens through their legislators and governor are telling police how to do their jobs.
In this case, when the police department is sued for not being aggressive enough by "you" and losing won't the end result be following your direction rather than the one they thought was best?Not sure a police officer would take direction from me over his superior though
timmy, a political party isn't committing suicide when it acts in what the majority of the voting base considers to be their best interest. The majority of this country - most especially those states on the border - have shown a clear and distinct desire to have illegal immigration controlled and cleaned up.Did you happen to miss the reaction of the country on the McCain-Kennedy Act that Bush said he would "see them at the signing"? The bi-partisan pro-illegal end run went down in flames when Congress read their constituents' responses to it.The rest of the country as a majority doesn't think like you do, and you aren't mainstream.And the Republican party continues to commit long-term national suicide...Not sure if this is true. While some cities such as Denver have taken on the sanctuary attitude, there have been several anti illegal immigrant laws passed in the state over the last 5-6 years. I know at least one Gubernatorial candidate has announced he would sign a law like Arizona's if elected. Given the poll number re: this law I could see it happening.Not a chance in hell that passes in CO. Sanctuary policy has been practiced widely on a state and local level - in fact, it is openly promoted by leaders here like the Gov & the mayor of Denver. It would appear we will be having a significant influx in immigrant population in the very near future (that is unless odds-on future Gov and current Denver mayor John Hickenlooper keeps stepping in his #### like he has several times in the past couple of weeks).Just heard on C-Span that Oklahoma is looking to adopt the same law as Arizona.
Look at the wording. It allows citizens to sue an "official or agency." But the indemnification provision protects "officers":
This is clearly directed at policy makers, not street cops--even if they are defying the law.
I agree with this. This debate is generally not partisan, but instead between classes. The masses want tighter control, more deportation, etc. Those with the economic and political clout in this nation generally seem to agree with Timmy at least when it comes to actual implementation (or lack there of) of policies. But that hasn't stopped the constant partisan pot shots through out this thread.
Yes, I acknowledged this a page or two ago. Section J which I already posted protects the officer's wallet if he gets caught up in this, I'm asking what gets this suit thrown out of court as nonsense.
Addressed in post 1106:
The same as any case: the facts.
It gets thrown out bc one cop deciding to not enforce the law in a particular instance, or even several instances, is not the department adopting or implementing a policy or practice of non-enforcement.
I disagree with Christo's read. This only indemnifies the officer. It does NOT mean you can't sue based on his behavior and recover from the government.
How can an officer implement a policy or practice?
If it helps you - Add the fact that the officer was neither investigated nor reprimanded in any way for the multiple instances of not enforcing the law to the resident's satisfaction.
Helps me? I thought I was helping you?Look, you would need to show, or at least allege to survive a motion to dismiss, that is was a policy or practice of the department (not of an officer) to fail to enforce the law.
But you are missing the point. I don't care with these questions about the police officer being sued in the sense that it is waste of resources or it injures the officer, I care about how these suits will shape the actual policies and practices the police departments would want to put in place. They train with well thought out safe guards to preserve the officers professionalism and standing in the community and that gets tossed to the side when someone sues because the officers don't go far enough.
Why not? IANAL but I'm gonna guess that if a citizen files suit against an individual cop his lawyer (or the cities or the unions) go to court and file a motion telling the judge that the law indemnified individual cops from being sued. You know, they tell the judge the FACTS. Then the judge rules in their favor and throws the suit out. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.
Right, so based on observing the actions of an officer you make complaints and when you feel your complaints were not addressed you sue and allege that the officer was illegal following to practice of "looking the other way". Why is this dismissed? And no, filling in what seem to be obvious to me blanks is not changing facts as I go along.
Re-read section J. All it does is compensate the officer if he sued, it doesn't toss out the suit.in·dem·ni·fy /ɪnˈdɛmnəˌfaɪ/ Show Spelled[in-dem-nuh-fahy] Show IPA
