Arizona Immigration Law - SB 1070

[dre]

What in the world is wrong with Obama and his crew? Here's the CNN article.

Here's a video of SoS Clinton on Spanish television, stating that the administration wants to challenge the new law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkhDqKAlFgY

I can't find the video, but Hillary Clinton's press secretary stood by her words at a later press conference asking for more details.

What in the world is wrong with Obama? Looks to me like he's pandering to an extremist political constituency, those who are opposed to any concept of borders and want to live in a global village. Certainly there is a strong and vocal component of the Hispanic community that is also sympathetic and supportive of illegal immigration from Mexico. More frightening, is if Obama in his heart of hearts is opposed to this bill on a moral level.

Its a power struggle between Fed and State over jurrisdiction (immigration law is under Fed jurrisdiction). The Feds really have no choice but to challenge this law. And of course the State felt they had no choice either since the Feds have shit the bed when it comes to dealing with immigration issues.

[Bob]

Its a power struggle between Fed and State over jurrisdiction (immigration law is under Fed jurrisdiction). The Feds really have no choice but to challenge this law. And of course the State felt they had no choice either since the Feds have shit the bed when it comes to dealing with immigration issues.

No it isn't. It's a challenge from the Obama administration of the constitutionality of the new law. Clearly Obama and his crew feel that this law abrogates civil liberties beyond what they're willing to accept towards the objective of reducing the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona. Put another way, the Obama administration agrees with the morons that suggest that this new law will lead to racial profiling and discrimination of Hispanics and some other ethnic groups. I'm not making this up, these are the words of Obama and his team. My take on this is that Obama is either a) deliberately trying to appeal to the worst of his supporters (the moronic extreme left) and/or he sincerely believes that this law is an affront to personal liberties.

Your suggestion is ridiculous, unless of course you think Obama and his team are lying about their real intentions, and that for them it's an issue of "turf" - and that they wanna control this issue.

[sharkman]

I'm not sure I understand why if the immigration law is somehow illegal or not in agreement with the constitution why it hasn't been struck down by now. Haven't abortion or Gay marriage laws been handled with more haste than this?

[Bob]

The major US networks certainly seem to be covering this story in different ways.Once again,FOX stands alone.Apparently,police DO NOT have the authority to randomly stop people and demand to see identification.They can only ask for ID if they have caught and detained someone for some sort of violation.Kind of a big thing for the critics to omit isn't it?This law doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

I actually find this part of the law somewhat ambiguous:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON

IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED

ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Doesn't this imply that if a police officer believes that person is an illegal immigrant that the police officer can the arrest him or her? This seems redundant to an earlier clause in the law talking about "lawful contact".

[Bob]

I was in Arizona when this law was passed. I really don't see how Arizona can function without the paperless Mexicans. I haven't looked into the validity of a comment I heard on TV, but it was said that 35% of Mexicans who are doing low-skilled jobs are illegal. How can you get rid of these 35% of workers and not see a huge negative effect on the state economy? I doubt most whites will do the jobs that the Mexicans are doing.

I just don't see this racist and xenophobic law lasting long. There is going to be too much national resistance. Many cities have already boycotted Arizona and many more will follow.

You illustrate racism in this very post. "Most whites" won't do the jobs that the Mexicans are doing? What in the world are you suggesting? Do you really think some statistic (which is more than likely false) regarding the proportion of "low-skilled" workers is a sufficient volume of data upon which to come to a conclusion about the economic ramifications of illegal immigration?

Let me guess, you avoided all technical subjected in high school, and continued to avoid them in university. Ever go beyond micro/macroeconomics 101? I'd expect more sense even from someone who *never* studied economics...

[Bob]

There is no 'furthermore'. The comment Dogsonporch has made, as already indicated by me, is wrong.

How do you determine if a person is illegal? How many Mexican looking people do they have to wrongfully request papers for before you think it's not really a good program? Are illegal Mexicans always running across the border for them to look suspicious or can the police pick out a Mexican looking person walking down the street and determine that he is an illegal?

Your entire line of questioning is based on the flawed supposition that this law gives permission to law enforcement officers to arrest anyone who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. What clause of the law gives this permission?

Towards law enforcement efforts to identify and remove illegal immigrants, a little common sense goes a long way towards identifying what areas to target. Where do illegal immigrants congregate? Where do they work? Where do they live? Identify these areas and go to work.

[Bob]

Remember the vicious opposition e-verify with its 99% success rate? It's clear that the opponents of this bill, on the whole, are supporters of wholesale illegal immigration. They oppose every single effort, no matter how reasonable, to tackle the problem of illegal immigration. Not only do they attack the methods proposed and utilized, they even attack that illegal immigration is a problem to begin with. From illegal immigrants parading in the streets with Mexican flags espousing Mexican nationalist messages and contempt for America and its citizens, to false argumentation that illegal immigration is actually an economic benefit for the USA and that America is a benefactor from the exploitation of illegal immigrants... this debate, in many areas, has become pure insanity.

[Bob]

American Woman, you're wrong and you need to admit that you're wrong. The ambiguity of the law allows the police officer to use the excuse of reasonable suspicion to ask anyone for papers. This will go on until there are court rulings to give a more concrete definition of this vague law.

So a key question is whether there be "reasonable suspicion" about someone's legal status in the absence of a crime -- major or minor -- being committed or suspected. If the answer is yes, it would undercut Huppenthal's argument.

In discussing these questions with legal experts, we found that everyone agreed that there's some gray area that will need to be sorted out in future court decisions. That said, the general consensus was that police could indeed stop someone even in the absence of suspicion that a crime was being committed.

Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, said that law enforcement officers can use profiling rather than suspicions of a specific crime being committed.

"Police departments come up with profiles that can establish a reasonable suspicion," Spiro said. Such profiles "entitle an officer to stop someone and say, 'I'd like to ask you some questions?' The officer can then investigate, which could lead to probable cause."

And at that point, Spiro said, an immigration status check would be acceptable under the Arizona law -- even if no specific crime was witnessed or suspected. "If you came up with a profile for undocumented immigrants, that would establish reasonable suspicion, and you could stop that person even if no other crime was suspected," he said.

Furthermore, this sums up the misinformation DogOnPorch and American Woman are either unknowingly or knowingly spreading:

Huppenthal's position -- that the police must suspect that something illegal is being committed before asking someone for proof of legal status -- is not correct. The law says the police officer just needs "reasonable suspicion'' that the person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States. The police are prohibited from using a profile based solely on racial or ethnic factors, but that standard can be sidestepped. In addition, some seemingly innocuous behaviors like getting in a car or making a gesture or nodding could be seen by a law officer as "reasonable suspicion" of the newly enacted prohibition against seeking work while in the United States illegally.

The passage in the law citing racial profiling does provide some protection, as does the difficulty of defining a profile for illegal immigrants that could pass legal muster, but the law leaves open several possibilities for police questioning individuals without seeing or suspecting a specific crime. So we rate Huppenthal's statement False.

Can you ever make your own arguments or are you dependent on gimmick websites? Certainly you can make moronic arguments without the help of others?

Let's tackle one of the problems in the assertions above, one apparently made by a law professor. SB 1070 specifically states that the bill itself cannot override or displace any federal law in its application. It's against federal law in the USA to do racial profiling. Thus, the logical conclusion is that law enforcement CANNOT form a racial profile of a group of people in order to go out and enforce this law.

Furthermore, although "lawful contact" is a broad term an includes contacts between police and persons outside of simply dealing with those suspected of committing crimes, the police officer still must have reasonable suspicion that the person is in the USA illegally. Like any law with subjectivity, the details will be ironed out through future cases where there are disputes. More importantly, why is it so hard to prove your legal status in the country? Who in the world doesn't carry around documentation as soon as they leave the house? For those that don't normally carry around documentation when they're out of their homes (silly), perhaps they can make this simple adjustment to their daily routines given the new law and recognize the very real problem of illegal immigration that Arizona is facing?

Yes, Huppenthal's suggestion isn't entirely accurate, but that doesn't discredit the legality or morality of this law.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

I am playing devil's advocate here... I don't really object to this law (as I understand it, at least).

A bit of background: although I have a day-job, I still waitress evenings downtown. I live in a small-to-mid-sized city that has an inexplicably large RCMP presence for its size, and a population of vagrants that likewise seems disproportionately large. And when I'm walking home from work I frequently see the RCMP chatting with the vagrants. These are not law-enforcement stops, these are "hey, buddy, where ya headed?" type conversations, again "just a friendly chat". Despite being on the street frequently after dark, I have never personally been approached by an officer for a "friendly chat". It would be a strange world if all of these police officers are more interested in being friends with the vagrants than with cute, lovable kimmy. As a result, I'm of the opinion that these "friendly chats" happen to suspicious-looking individuals, not people who look like ordinary folks. And as a result I'm of the opinion that these "friendly chats" are considered to be part of police-work, even if perhaps an unwritten part of it.

I don't have reason to believe that any of these "friendly chats" are actually for sinister purposes. I've never seen one that looked disagreeable, and I've never seen one turn into an arrest. They may be genuine attempts to become familiar with the street people, find out if everything is ok, find out whether there are problems, find out if the person needs help or information or any of that sort of thing. They might be completely well-meaning.

But (and I hate to sound like I'm taking up for naomiglover...) it's also entirely possible that the officers may also be looking for probable cause. I doubt that police officers are really that interested in finding ways to write up vagrants for minor offenses, because the paperwork alone is probably more headache than it's worth. But if they were so inclined, they probably could. And while it's possible that arrests resulting from information gained during one of these "friendly chats" could be overturned on the grounds that the officer had no cause to question the individual in the first place, it's not entirely clear, and it's unlikely that the people most likely to be affected would have either the financial resources or the legal knowledge to contest the situation anyway.

-k

That's a pretty keen observation. Perhaps they're just making their presence known, and developing some sort of positive rapport with the residents who are more likely to be committing crimes or know about crimes committed or to be committed. It could be a way of gathering intelligence to stop crime. Either way, the activity of the police you're describing, I'm sure, contributes to a safer environment. You're certainly very observant.

[Bob]

I mentioned the cops' "friendliness" towards vagrants in my community by way of illustrating that police can talk to people even if they don't have probable cause.

In my neighborhood, the cops seem to like talking to people who look like vagrants, but in some other town they might like talking to people who look like Mexicans.

Racial profiling might be against the law, but I don't see how they can make it illegal for a police officer to have a "friendly chat" with anyone. And if during the course of a "friendly chat" the officer was provided with probable cause, he'd at that point be able to make "lawful contact" and ask for documentation, would he not?

I think it's naomi's point, and she might be right, that it may be possible for law enforcement officers to find excuses to make "lawful contact" with people they suspect of being aliens if they so wished.

-k

Aren't these semi-flexible permissions desirable, though? Don't you want to police to be able to deal with the problem of illegal immigration? The way I look at it, who doesn't have proof of their legal status in a country whenever they leave the house? Forget about carrying documentation around when you travel, virtually every time I leave the house I have some sort of ID with me. And if I lived in a place with a serious illegal immigration problem that just passed this type of law, I'd make certain to carry ID with me at all times.

[Pliny]

All I have to say is - WOW BOB, WOW!

Barack Obama himself met with the Arizona Governor last week and through a slip of the tongue a week later the Arizona Governor learns the Feds will be suing the State over this legislation.

It is unbelievably covert of the President to be discussing the legislation, ensuring the Federal government will be looking at the matter and knowing they are planning a lawsuit against the Arizona legislation.

My Hair is curling!!! Well...what there is of it.

[Pliny]

Its a power struggle between Fed and State over jurrisdiction (immigration law is under Fed jurrisdiction). The Feds really have no choice but to challenge this law. And of course the State felt they had no choice either since the Feds have shit the bed when it comes to dealing with immigration issues.

I think you are partially right with this. The Federal government is certainly interested in maintaining central authority. However, they should recognize their own shortfalls in the area. They don't, and it will mean an open border if the Arizona law

is struck down.

[Bob]

I think you are partially right with this. The Federal government is certainly interested in maintaining central authority. However, they should recognize their own shortfalls in the area. They don't, and it will mean an open border if the Arizona law

is struck down.

You think it's an issue of turf? What is this, a Law and Order episode with a beef between the local police department and the FBI? I think it's pretty obvious this is either Obama pandering to a particular group of his base and/or him fulfilling his sincere personal ideological leanings.

[Smallc]

Challenging the constitutionality of the bill could very well have to do with who has jurisdiction in this situation.

[Bob]

I still don't understand what "comprehensive immigration reform" is. Is that amnesty? Or put another way, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? I'd love to read the details of any serious proposals to those ends.

More importantly, doesn't closing the border take priority over addressing the desires of illegal immigrants to become legitimate residents of the country? Secure the border, stop the influx of illegal immigrants, then address the presence of those who got in.

[Jack Weber]

Challenging the constitutionality of the bill could very well have to do with who has jurisdiction in this situation.

The States Rights arguement over illegal immigration...

This could get ugly....

[Bob]

Challenging the constitutionality of the bill could very well have to do with who has jurisdiction in this situation.

How does that make sense? Local and state police can arrest people for federal crimes. What's different here? If illegal presence in the country is a federal crime, local and state police can still facilitate arrests and then transfer them to the federal system for court. Am I missing something? Do we divide up the responsibility to exclude certain government agencies/law enforcement from other problems like hurricanes, floods, terrorism, or civil unrest (understandably more immediate and short-term problems, but so what?)?

From another perspective, shouldn't Obama be supportive of Arizona in its efforts (with popular support) to address a serious problem it's dealing with? Arizona is a state with a a major stake in the problem of illegal immigration, what's wrong with extending the scope of what the current local and state police are doing in order to address this problem?

[dre]

No it isn't. It's a challenge from the Obama administration of the constitutionality of the new law. Clearly Obama and his crew feel that this law abrogates civil liberties beyond what they're willing to accept towards the objective of reducing the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona. Put another way, the Obama administration agrees with the morons that suggest that this new law will lead to racial profiling and discrimination of Hispanics and some other ethnic groups. I'm not making this up, these are the words of Obama and his team. My take on this is that Obama is either a) deliberately trying to appeal to the worst of his supporters (the moronic extreme left) and/or he sincerely believes that this law is an affront to personal liberties.

Your suggestion is ridiculous, unless of course you think Obama and his team are lying about their real intentions, and that for them it's an issue of "turf" - and that they wanna control this issue.

Youre out to lunch buddy.

This case is a constitutional jurrisdiction issue. Customs, immigration, and immigration enforcement are all Federal powers. As I said the administration has no choice but to challenge this law, or every border state will write their laws and it will be impossible for the government to control immigration in a uniform manner.

Heres what Clinton said today...

“President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy,” Clinton said. “And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

Its also almost certain that he will win.

[bush_cheney2004]

Youre out to lunch buddy.

This case is a constitutional jurrisdiction issue. Customs, immigration, and immigration enforcement are all Federal powers. As I said the administration has no choice but to challenge this law, or every border state will write their laws and it will be impossible for the government to control immigration in a uniform manner.

Sure...and bank robbery is a federal crime, so local and state law enforcement should not enforce such laws, relying on the FBI instead.

Edited June 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

How does that make sense? Local and state police can arrest people for federal crimes. What's different here? If illegal presence in the country is a federal crime, local and state police can still facilitate arrests and then transfer them to the federal system for court. Am I missing something? Do we divide up the responsibility to exclude certain government agencies/law enforcement from other problems like hurricanes, floods, terrorism, or civil unrest (understandably more immediate and short-term problems, but so what?)?

From another perspective, shouldn't Obama be supportive of Arizona in its efforts (with popular support) to address a serious problem it's dealing with? Arizona is a state with a a major stake in the problem of illegal immigration, what's wrong with extending the scope of what the current local and state police are doing in order to address this problem?

How does that make sense? Local and state police can arrest people for federal crimes. What's different here? If illegal presence in the country is a federal crime, local and state police can still facilitate arrests and then transfer them to the federal system for court. Am I missing something?

It makes perfect sense. Its a piece of immigration legislation and the states arent allowed to write that stuff. And its not just about local police enforcing federal crimes... The new law would make it a state criminal offence not to carry immigration papers.

From another perspective, shouldn't Obama be supportive of Arizona in its efforts (with popular support) to address a serious problem it's dealing with?

He should be supportive by pushing for good immigration law at the Federal level. Not by allowing border states to create their own sets of mismatching and conflicting ad-hoc laws.

[dre]

Sure...and bank robbery is a federal crime, so local and state law enforcement should not enforce such laws, relying on the FBI instead.

Oh boy...

Nobody is saying that various law enforcement agencies cant enforce federal laws in many cases. But thats utterly irrelevant to the case here. Arizona is writing immigration legislation... New laws... not just enforcing existing federal laws.

[Bob]

Arizona isn't changing any immigration laws. What on earth are you talking about? Arizona isn't rewriting the rules under which people can enter and reside in the country. All Arizona is doing is adding an avenue through which local and state law enforcement can now ask persons for proof of legal status in the USA. None of the controversy regarding this law has suggested that somehow this is a overstepping of state jurisdiction into that of the federal sphere.

Why do I even bother replying to you? Perhaps your hostility to me causes you to make a fool of yourself out of desperation to disagree with me. If you don't understand the subject matter of the thread, don't post.

[Bob]

Oh boy...

Nobody is saying that various law enforcement agencies cant enforce federal laws in many cases. But thats utterly irrelevant to the case here. Arizona is writing immigration legislation... New laws... not just enforcing existing federal laws.

No, they're not. Immigration laws remain the same.

[Bob]

Let's try to swerve the conversation away from idiocy for a moment - do you folks (I'm looking particularly at the Americans, here) think Obama sincerely believes he's doing the right thing and acting on conscience or do you think he's pandering to a component of his base? I wonder how the Hispanic community of Arizona feels about this law.

[dre]

Arizona isn't changing any immigration laws. What on earth are you talking about? Arizona isn't rewriting the rules under which people can enter and reside in the country. All Arizona is doing is adding an avenue through which local and state law enforcement can now ask persons for proof of legal status in the USA. None of the controversy regarding this law has suggested that somehow this is a overstepping of state jurisdiction into that of the federal sphere.

Why do I even bother replying to you? Perhaps your hostility to me causes you to make a fool of yourself out of desperation to disagree with me. If you don't understand the subject matter of the thread, don't post.

Dude, can you even fuckin read?

It would allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents.

Thats a new law... It wasnt illegal for immigrants to walk around without papers before this law was passed and its not illegal anywhere else including on the Federal level.

Now take a deep breath, and try your hardest to understand.

Arizonas new law is an IMMIGRATION LAW. Only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can write...

Gaaaah. Just never mind.