Arizona Immigration Law - SB 1070

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Fine by me...then Arizona state and local police can begin enforcing FEDERAL immigration law. Problem solved...next!

[dre]

Fine by me...then Arizona state and local police can begin enforcing FEDERAL immigration law. Problem solved...next!

Yeah the problem is that unless this new law passes, they cant demand immigration papers from people they detain, so its almost impossible for them to tell whos legal and who isnt.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah the problem is that unless this new law passes, they cant demand immigration papers from people they detain, so its almost impossible for them to tell whos legal and who isnt.

Nonsense....they can shake down illegals just like any citizen to determine legal residency, employment fraud, or outstanding warrants.

[dre]

Nonsense....they can shake down illegals just like any citizen to determine legal residency, employment fraud, or outstanding warrants.

Well whatever they could do before this law, they can keep doing that. What they CANT do is write immigration law, and thats what this lawsuit is about, and its a slam dunk.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well whatever they could do before this law, they can keep doing that. What they CANT do is write immigration law, and thats what this lawsuit is about, and its a slam dunk.

That remains to be seen.....in the mean time....start rounding up the illegals for deportation.

[sharkman]

I wish that american lawyer guy was still around...

Is this the best instrument the Obama administration has at its disposal to overturn an "illegal" law, a lawsuit? It just seems to me that if it was so unconstitutional SCOTUS would get it into their hot little hands more quickly and make a ruling, kind of like they did with the 2000 election results.

A lawsuit is so risky, anyone can win, and it could take several years to get a final ruling. Again, how can this be the best strategy Obama has?

[Guest American Woman]

Well whatever they could do before this law, they can keep doing that. What they CANT do is write immigration law, and thats what this lawsuit is about, and its a slam dunk.

Not so sure it is. First of all, I doubt if you are familiar enough with U.S. law/State's Rights to declare what they can or cannot do, much less declare the outcome of the lawsuit is a "slam dunk." That's up to the courts to decide, and I think this letter hits on some points that will be brought up in the lawsuit:

If the federal government will not enforce the protection of these many United States, which is one of the primary functions of said government, then it is up the individual states as part of their state rights (10th Amendment). And, it is the right of the citizenry to demand such protection (First and Ninth amendments). link

States do have rights, too, and that may be the decision regarding this lawsuit.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department under his direction will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.

The federal government did determine this very immigration policy; this law is just giving the state the power to enforce it.

GIULIANI: [...] It just reiterates federal law. And the reality is, the preemption doctrine that says that the federal government preempts in areas of immigration is if the state wanted to do something to lighten the laws or give more benefits.

It doesn't say that the states can't do things that reinforce the federal law. And the reality is, that's all this does. And states have an interest here. It's not just the federal interests. link

[scribblet]

I don't see the problem, they can only ask for papers if they have allready been stopped, they can't just walk up to someone and ask to see the papers.

What on earth is wrong with trying to control illegal immigration, and what part of illegal do people not understand !

[Bob]

Dude, can you even fuckin read?

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

Really? Where does the law say that?

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.

Nobody ever disputed that it was a new a law. Congratulations on this astute observation. Here are your own statements:

This case is a constitutional jurrisdiction issue. Customs, immigration, and immigration enforcement are all Federal powers.

Enforcement is not exclusively a federal power. Furthermore, SB 1070 requires police officers to transfer those suspected of being illegal to federal agencies. Just because a law is federal, doesn't mean other levels of enforcement can't play a role.

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

No it isn't. It's a law permitting and requiring state and local police to play a role in the enforcement of existing federal immigration laws. This law is not an immigration law. An immigration law would alter the conditions under which foreigners can come and stay in the USA. SB 1070 does nothing of the sort.

An intelligent person would know the difference between an "immigration law" and a new state law regarding the enforcement of existing immigration laws. This is an important distinction you can't understand. Seriously, stop posting on the subject matter if it's over your head.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

Yeah the problem is that unless this new law passes, they cant demand immigration papers from people they detain, so its almost impossible for them to tell whos legal and who isnt.

The bill was already signed into law a little while back. It comes into effect at the end of July. Where've you been?

More accurately, this bill gives local and state police the authority to confirm legal permission of individuals to be in the country. This involves coordination with the federal government. I don't know the details, but the verification procedure involves the federal government - as obviously the federal government has the information on who is and isn't allowed in the country.

[dre]

Not so sure it is. First of all, I doubt if you are familiar enough with U.S. law/State's Rights to declare what they can or cannot do, much less declare the outcome of the lawsuit is a "slam dunk." That's up to the courts to decide, and I think this letter hits on some points that will be brought up in the lawsuit:

If the federal government will not enforce the protection of these many United States, which is one of the primary functions of said government, then it is up the individual states as part of their state rights (10th Amendment). And, it is the right of the citizenry to demand such protection (First and Ninth amendments). link

States do have rights, too, and that may be the decision regarding this lawsuit.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department under his direction will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.

The federal government did determine this very immigration policy; this law is just giving the state the power to enforce it.

GIULIANI: [...] It just reiterates federal law. And the reality is, the preemption doctrine that says that the federal government preempts in areas of immigration is if the state wanted to do something to lighten the laws or give more benefits.

It doesn't say that the states can't do things that reinforce the federal law. And the reality is, that's all this does. And states have an interest here. It's not just the federal interests. link

States do have rights, too, and that may be the decision regarding this lawsuit.

Yes states have rights... but writing immigration legislation isnt one of them.

The federal government did determine this very immigration policy; this law is just giving the state the power to enforce it.

No the law does much more than that.

You can read it here.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/text-of-arizona%e2%80%99s-anti-illegal-immigration-law%e2%80%93part-4/

[Bob]

Arizona isn't writing "immigration legislation". Saying it over and over again won't make it true.

Nothing in your link backs up your assertion that the new law constitutes "immigration legislation" or that the new law "...would allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents."

You're just as wrong now as you were twelve hours ago.

Interestingly, the comments to the website you linked show support for the new law - any reasonable person would support this law.

[Guest American Woman]

No the law does much more than that.

You can read it here.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/text-of-arizona%e2%80%99s-anti-illegal-immigration-law%e2%80%93part-4/

Trust me. I've read the law. Time will tell the results of the lawsuit, and whether it goes one way or the other, the outcome isn't a "given" despite your opinion. There are legitimate factors to be taken into consideration, and they will be considered.

[dre]

Nothing in your link backs up your assertion that the new law constitutes "immigration legislation" or that the new law "...would allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents."

Right. So you didnt read it... Huge suprise.

13-1509. Willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document; assessment; exception; classification

A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

B. In the enforcement of this section, the final determination of an alien's immigration status shall be determined by either:

1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.

2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373©.

C. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.

D. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:

1. At least five hundred dollars for a first violation.

2. Twice the amount specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection if the person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.

E. A court shall collect the assessments prescribed in subsection D of this section and remit the assessments to the department of public safety, which shall establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission appropriation. Monies in the special subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.

Edited June 19, 2010 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

What on earth is wrong with trying to control illegal immigration, and what part of illegal do people not understand !

Good quote by the governor: "Our federal government should be using its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the law-abiding citizens of Arizona."

link

Edited June 19, 2010 by American Woman

[Shady]

It's going to be tough for the Feds to overturn the Arizona law. It basically mirrors existing federal legislation of the Alien Registration Act of 1940. In otherwords, the Feds are going to have to overturn their own at the same time.

[Bob]

Right. So you didnt read it...

Good luck citing any part of the law that corroborates your false claim that - "It would allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents".

This is pure fiction. If you were interesting in learning and not just talking, you'd actually consult the law and spend ten minutes reading it. Come on, you didn't even know the law was passed by Arizona's Senate, and you probably couldn't even name Arizona's governor (or previous governor!!! ) You think you're fooling anyone into thinking you've actually read any of the law?

Feel free trying to back up your falsehoods.

[dre]

Good quote by the governor: "Our federal government should be using its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the law-abiding citizens of Arizona."

link

Hes right! The Federal government shit the bed, and thats why states want to take this matter into their own hands. That doesnt change the fact that States passing immigration laws usurps an enumerated power of the Federal Government in the US constitution.

The last time a state tried to do this was in California. They claimed they were "changing immigration laws" as well, all they were doing was trying to deny social services to illegal immigrants. The law never made it through to implementation.

Edited June 19, 2010 by dre

[dre]

Good luck citing any part of the law that corroborates your false claim that - "It would allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents".

This is pure fiction. If you were interesting in learning and not just talking, you'd actually consult the law and spend ten minutes reading it. Come on, you didn't even know the law was passed by Arizona's Senate, and you probably couldn't even name Arizona's governor (or previous governor!!! ) You think you're fooling anyone into thinking you've actually read any of the law?

Feel free trying to back up your falsehoods.

I have read it. Everly line. And you had never even seen the text until I linked it to you. And you still havent read jack shit.

Edited June 19, 2010 by dre

[Shady]

Perhaps dre is reading the non-amended Arizona law.

[dre]

Perhaps dre is reading the non-amended Arizona law.

Iv read the ammendments as well. They backtrack on the origional intent a little bit, by making it so that Police officers can only question immigrants on their status if they were engaged as part of another situation. For example, if an immigrant was pulled over for speeding theyre status could be questioned, but they chould not be pulled over specifically to check their status.

[Guest American Woman]

Iv read the ammendments as well. They backtrack on the origional intent a little bit, by making it so that Police officers can only question immigrants on their status if they were engaged as part of another situation.

No, the amended bill does not "backtrack on the original intent;" it clarifies the original intent.

For example, if an immigrant was pulled over for speeding theyre status could be questioned, but they chould not be pulled over specifically to check their status.

The intent was never to allow police to pull a person over specifically to check their status.

[Bob]

Right. So you didnt read it... Huge suprise.

Those are all existing federal laws. SB 1070 allows Arizona to enforce EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS, which includes levying a $500 fine on a non-compliant foreigner (the "new" law from Arizona). Do you not know that foreigners are legally obligated to carry documentation on their person when in USA? Are you ignorant of this fact? Just as you must carry your driver's license on your when driving, all foreigners must carry documentation proving their legal permission to be in the USA.

More accurately, this allows Arizona to levy a fine for non-compliance with FEDERAL LAW.

You're also still wrong when you say that Arizona is creating new immigration laws. More accurately, it's a new law giving more responsibility to state and local authorities to enforce existing federal laws. No new immigration law was passed, even though you keep saying that.

Here's the existing federal law requiring foreigners to carry proof of their legal permission to be in the USA at all times; common sense, really.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Bob

[Shady]

Iv read the ammendments as well. They backtrack on the origional intent a little bit, by making it so that Police officers can only question immigrants on their status if they were engaged as part of another situation. For example, if an immigrant was pulled over for speeding theyre status could be questioned, but they chould not be pulled over specifically to check their status.

Actually, anyone can be asked for proper citizenship, whether it's immigrants, illegal immigrants, or natural born citizens. And yes, if you get pulled over for speeding, and you can't produce a valid drivers license and vehicle ownership, you may then be asked about your status. Seems logical to me.

[Bob]

Hes right! The Federal government shit the bed, and thats why states want to take this matter into their own hands. That doesnt change the fact that States passing immigration laws usurps an enumerated power of the Federal Government in the US constitution.

The last time a state tried to do this was in California. They claimed they were "changing immigration laws" as well, all they were doing was trying to deny social services to illegal immigrants. The law never made it through to implementation.

No new immigration law has been passed. The criteria under which foreigners can immigrate to the USA hasn't changed. You're too simple to comprehend these distinctions. I honestly feel bad for you.