Arizona Immigration Law - SB 1070

[dre]

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

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

The origional law and its intent didnt require that officers determine the status of an immigrant during an engagement over another issue. Now it does.

[Bob]

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

Again, none of that is new. It simply gives Arizona the permission to levy a fine (and other variable costs such as jail costs) to foreigners who are found guilty of violating EXISTING FEDERAL LAW(S). So it's new in one sense, that Arizona has added monetary penalties to EXISTING FEDERAL LAW, which is relevant context you're too ignorant to mention.

[Guest American Woman]

The origional law and its intent didnt require that officers determine the status of an immigrant during an engagement over another issue. Now it does.

The intent has remained the same. It wasn't clear in the first bill, which is why there was a clarification, but intent remained the same as the original intent.

[dre]

The intent has remained the same. It wasn't clear in the first bill, which is why there was a clarification, but intent remained the same as the original intent.

Well... Ill make you a friendly bet of $100 bux that the law or most of it is struck down.

[Guest American Woman]

Well... Ill make you a friendly bet of $100 bux that the law or most of it is struck down.

Would that $100 be Canadian money or real money?

[dre]

Would that $100 be Canadian money or real money?

I insist we denominate our transaction in Eritrean Nakfas

[Guest American Woman]

I insist we denominate our transaction in Eritrean Nakfas

In that case, you've got yourself a deal.

[Argus]

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.

I don't know enough about law to say whether it is or not. I do know that whether the Obama administration wins or not it's going to look very, very, very ugly on them when the state starts asking the representative of the federal government about all the illegals flooding across the border and why nothing is done and the fed has to find some way of answering other than "Uhm, uh, well, you see, we're afraid that might cost us votes among Hispanics."

There's also a state defense issue, isn't there? Isn't the federal government required to defend the individual states from foreign attacks or invasions or whatever? Don't millions of foreigners crossing the border against the will of the citizens of a state constitute an invasion of a kind?

Does Obama really want Arizona in court claiming that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility to defend the states? Especially if there are several dozen state governments testifying alongside them?

Edited June 19, 2010 by Argus

[dre]

I don't know enough about law to say whether it is or not. I do know that whether the Obama administration wins or not it's going to look very, very, very ugly on them when the state starts asking the representative of the federal government about all the illegals flooding across the border and why nothing is done and the fed has to find some way of answering other than "Uhm, uh, well, you see, we're afraid that might cost us votes among Hispanics."

There's also a state defense issue, isn't there? Isn't the federal government required to defend the individual states from foreign attacks or invasions or whatever? Don't millions of foreigners crossing the border against the will of the citizens of a state constitute an invasion of a kind?

Does Obama really want Arizona in court claiming that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility to defend the states? Especially if there are several dozen state governments testifying alongside them?

Yeah those are all good points... although the foreign invasion part might be a bit of a stretch. But yeah... The federal government has completely dropped the ball on immigration for about 30 years... mostly at the behest of US businesses, the chamer of commerce etc.

My guess is this situation will force the Feds to try some kind of immigration reform again, but the problem of course is that you have the normal level of American-Two-Party-False-Dichotomy style polarization with a bunch of people favoring blanket amnesty, and a bunch of others supporting mass deportation, and a political system thats so dysfunctional I dont think anybody on either side believes the problem will get fixed.

[Argus]

Yeah those are all good points... although the foreign invasion part might be a bit of a stretch. But yeah... The federal government has completely dropped the ball on immigration for about 30 years... mostly at the behest of US businesses, the chamer of commerce etc.

Between the Republicans, beholden to the Agricultural lobby and big business that wants cheap, non-complaining workers - and the Democrats, terrified of being seen to be acting against the wishes of the growing Hispanic population - I rather doubt this problem will ever get solved.

[dre]

Between the Republicans, beholden to the Agricultural lobby and big business that wants cheap, non-complaining workers - and the Democrats, terrified of being seen to be acting against the wishes of the growing Hispanic population - I rather doubt this problem will ever get solved.

I would try to find a middle ground between amnesty and deportation. Take a look at those 10 million + illegals. If theyre ONLY crime is illegal entry and they are otherwise productive law biding members of society, then give them some kind of status and get them on the books paying taxes. Deport the ones that have caused a bunch of trouble, participated in illegal activities etc. These would be a lot easier from both a political perspective and a logistical one.

But youre right... there a lot of aspects in play here that make it really hard to fix the problem.

Edited June 20, 2010 by dre

[ToadBrother]

There are two targets of this bill. The first is Obama and his timid federal government. The Democrats are terrified of alienating (no pun intended) the Hispanic vote, and so do nothing about the massive numbers of illegals flooding across their southern border. The second target are the municipal politicians within Arizona who cater to the Hispanic vote, more specifically, to the loud, vocal "ethnic representative" types, and so have protected illegals. In certain places in the US, in Arizona, which are known as "sanctuary" cities and towns, places where, offically or unofficially, municipal officials and police look the other way in terms of immigration status, and simply pretend everyone they deal with, even if they don't speak a word of English, is a citizen. Phoenix and Tuscon are considered sanctuary cities.

Whatever the bill's purpose, it's utility will be limited in the long-term. In the long term, Mexicans and other Spanish-speaking peoples are slowing building a belt from Florida to California that will be bi-lingually Spanish and English, predominantly Catholic (which has been a focus of paranoia in certain parts of the US long before illegal Mexican immigration came on the scene; Italians and Irish in the past have both been victims of this kind of stereotyping). What happens when that area becomes predominantly Hispanic? The bill is an attack on the growing political power of these people, but it is doomed, because the demographics are on their side. The US may have won the Mexican-American War, but it looks like the Mexicans have figured out a way to get the territory back. Considering the utter lack of justification for the war, other than the forced annexation of territory, I'd say that the folks in places like Arizona ponder the irony of the current situation.

[sharkman]

Between the Republicans, beholden to the Agricultural lobby and big business that wants cheap, non-complaining workers - and the Democrats, terrified of being seen to be acting against the wishes of the growing Hispanic population - I rather doubt this problem will ever get solved.

I agree that the above is why nothing has happened before now, but the game has changed. Americans are dying along the border as they try to protect their land/property. Crime is way up in the border towns. Illegals are a drain on the system. There are a multitude of reasons why the Arizona governor supports the new law. Even Obama recently agreed to send troops to the border. When was the last time that happened?

The thing I wonder about is whether these illegals can vote, and I suspect most of them can. If they were to tighten up the US citizen requirement for voting, that would probably start a new unrest.

Edited July 13, 2010 by sharkman

[sharkman]

I have asked about the illegality of this new law and the seemingly odd strategy that Obama has employed to have it overturned. I'm not sure we have explored this, so here is a perfect example. Obama banned offshore drilling recently only to have it overturned in court. His administration appealed only to have the decision reaffirmed by the appeals court. So now, instead of realizing that you can't simply ban offshore drilling, Obama has issued a new decree of banning offshore drilling, but I'm getting off topic.

My point is this. If this new immigration law is illegal or contrary to the constitution as the Administration says, why the hell hasn't it been already declared so by the courts? Obama's banning didn't even last 3 weeks, yet Law SB 1070 hasn't been thrown out. Why not? Perhaps it doesn't cross the threshold of illegality after all. What if Obama's handlers know full well it won't be overturned, and they are just wasting the courts' time and taxpayer money in the hopes of garnering support of latinos for the mid-terms. I wouldn't be surprised.

[lictor616]

Between the Republicans, beholden to the Agricultural lobby and big business that wants cheap, non-complaining workers - and the Democrats, terrified of being seen to be acting against the wishes of the growing Hispanic population - I rather doubt this problem will ever get solved.

that unfortunately sums up the problem precisely... despite public opinion being heavily against illegal immigration, neither of the old parties have a platform to carry out the will of the people.

that`s the "coke or pepsi" democracy that is the disease of party politics of the US(and canada for that matter) ... where on the essential issues, the ones important for the nation, no platform is given to the people. Instead they get to argue about a trifle like abortion or gay marriage.

[bush_cheney2004]

Whatever the bill's purpose, it's utility will be limited in the long-term. In the long term, Mexicans and other Spanish-speaking peoples are slowing building a belt from Florida to California that will be bi-lingually Spanish and English, predominantly Catholic (which has been a focus of paranoia in certain parts of the US long before illegal Mexican immigration came on the scene; Italians and Irish in the past have both been victims of this kind of stereotyping).

Looks like the only stereotyping is yours....Hispanics are the largest but not the only source for legal and illegal immigration, which includes Canadians.

What happens when that area becomes predominantly Hispanic? The bill is an attack on the growing political power of these people, but it is doomed, because the demographics are on their side. The US may have won the Mexican-American War, but it looks like the Mexicans have figured out a way to get the territory back. Considering the utter lack of justification for the war, other than the forced annexation of territory, I'd say that the folks in places like Arizona ponder the irony of the current situation.

More nonsense from over the northern border....60% of legal immigrants and Hispanic citizens favor the new law in Arizona. This ain't Canada....and it's not Quebec!

[sharkman]

If this new law was illegal the courts would have thrown it out by now as they did Obama's drilling ban. Since it isn't, law enforcement has a new tool to fight crime with.

[Guest American Woman]

What happens when that area becomes predominantly Hispanic? The bill is an attack on the growing political power of these people, but it is doomed, because the demographics are on their side.

Hispanic GOP Group to Announce Support for Arizona Immigration Law

ALRA will become the first group of Latino Americans to "put a foot forward legally" in support of S.B. 1070 by filing a motion to intervene against the Justice Department's lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration policy, Klayman said.

"This is a way to tell the country that, 'Hey, we're Americans too and we believe in the rule of law," Klayman told Foxnews.com. "It's a way to say, 'We got here legally and we contributed a great deal. We want the rest of the country to recognize that we're with you' [in the national immigration debate]."

I don't know why you would assume that legal Hispanic immigrants would be in support of illegals.

[Shwa]

I don't know why you would assume that legal Hispanic immigrants would be in support of illegals.

Not all legal Hispanic immigrants would be in support of illegal Hispanic immigrants, at least not publically, of course. But I am sure there is some sympathy there. Aztlan perhaps? Maybe Arizona is prime homeland real estate.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Shwa

[Smallc]

If this new law was illegal the courts would have thrown it out by now as they did Obama's drilling ban. Since it isn't, law enforcement has a new tool to fight crime with.

I would think someone would have to first challenge it, and then things would have to make their way through the system for that to happen.

[Bonam]

Hispanic GOP Group to Announce Support for Arizona Immigration Law

ALRA will become the first group of Latino Americans to "put a foot forward legally" in support of S.B. 1070 by filing a motion to intervene against the Justice Department's lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration policy, Klayman said.

"This is a way to tell the country that, 'Hey, we're Americans too and we believe in the rule of law," Klayman told Foxnews.com. "It's a way to say, 'We got here legally and we contributed a great deal. We want the rest of the country to recognize that we're with you' [in the national immigration debate]."

I don't know why you would assume that legal Hispanic immigrants would be in support of illegals.

Indeed. Actually I think the people who have the most at stake and be the most against illegal immigration are legal immigrants. These are people who pay a lot of money, go through a lot of bureaucracy, and spend years of their lives waiting for the chance to become American residents and eventually citizens. And yet illegals bypass all this and there are people advocating that they should just all be made residents or citizens by some decree known as "immigration reform". That would be an utter slap in the face to all the legal immigrants who have waited years and years to achieve that status.

[Bob]

I wanted to revisit this thread because after reconsidering and changing my position. Although I support the desire to increase the scope of responsibility of the police and the bill's intention to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants in the USA via attrition, the term "lawful contact" needs to be changed.

All they need to do is redefine that term to "detention" or "arrest". In other words, peace officers should only be permitted to verify a person's legal presence in the USA under those two circumstances, because both of them require a certain threshold of reasonable suspicion of the detained or arrested individual's participation in crime in order to legally justified. In my view, police already have plenty of latitude towards detention and arrest, and should therefore only be permitted to verify a person's legal presence in the country under those forms of "lawful contact".

Although the following story is somewhat tangential, and arguably a breach of SB1070 even in its current wording, here's an example of an American being arrested at a "checkstop" and being taken to some centre because he didn't have his birth certificate on his person. He apparently provided his trucker's license and social security card, but that wasn't enough (which suggests that the folks that arrested him overstepped their authority even according to SB1070, because a license is sufficient to verify one's lawful presence in the country according to law).

Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling

Anyways, I think SB1070 either needs to be challenged and defeated repealed, or amended (ideally amended). My two cents.