I am confused....

[TheRedlines]

What kind of footing does President Obama have to stand on as to opposing Arizona in the Illegal Immigrant situation? Why is there such an opposition? Is it truly just for votes or am I missing something?

[Gray Wolf]

Two things to consider:
1. Obama wants immigration reform to be giving amnesty to illegals, not deporting them and keeping them out of the US.
2. If Arizona is successful, it will make this and every previous administration look like the incompetent fools that they are by their failure to secure our borders and improve the lives of US citizens.

[TheRedlines]

Two things to consider:
1. Obama wants immigration reform to be giving amnesty to illegals, not deporting them and keeping them out of the US.
2. If Arizona is successful, it will make this and every previous administration look like the incompetent fools that they are by their failure to secure our borders and improve the lives of US citizens.

Sadly, I totally agree with you. I just can't see how he can take such a quick stand with these being his reasons to give to the world. It makes the leftist side sound absolutely crooked. (I understand how crooked all sides are but none are usually so quick and open to showing it).

[bamafan64]

This is the one problem the federal government could solve relatively simply. Neither party will do it because of risk of losing the Hispanic vote. Time to kick them all out of office in Washington. Arizona simply stood up and did something that the Feds have been playing ping pong with for at least twenty years. They should be applauded for taking the bull by the horns. Obama should be ashamed to denounce those who are doing his job for him since he won't-upholding existing law and protecting our borders. His turn to be kicked out comes in 2012.

[Austin]

Gents, this is a thread that will turn ugly really quick. This is not a political forum. If you need help finding one, let me know and I will give you a few.

Immigration laws are truly needed but this law will promote race profiling for people of brown skin including myself. I would hate to get pulled over daily to prove I was born in this great country. I would really be pissed if it happened to my daughter and my soldier son.

[TheRedlines]

Gents, this is a thread that will turn ugly really quick. This is not a political forum. If you need help finding one, let me know and I will give you a few.

Immigration laws are truly needed but this law will promote race profiling for people of brown skin including myself. I would hate to get pulled over daily to prove I was born in this great country. I would really be pissed if it happened to my daughter and my soldier son.


To be quite honest I am quite tan and am mistaken quite often by hispanics to be hispanic myself. I would not mind at all to be asked to show proof at a time of being stopped by an officer. It would show me that they were doing their job and I would applaud and thank them.

**BTW, I am not trying to start a heated debate but rather am searching for a real answer to my question from a supporter of the opposition which holds merit. I apologize if it looks as otherwise.

[Austin]

To be quite honest I am quite tan and am mistaken quite often by hispanics to be hispanic myself. I would not mind at all to be asked to show proof at a time of being stopped by an officer. It would show me that they were doing their job and I would applaud and thank them.

I would be offended.

[Obsessed]

Immigration laws are truly needed but this law will promote race profiling for people of brown skin including myself. I would hate to get pulled over daily to prove I was born in this great country. I would really be pissed if it happened to my daughter and my soldier son.

What, you don't think they'll be pulling over many blonde blue-eyed people to see if they're here legally from Sweden?

"Your papers please." My God.

In any event, I would not be surprised if this is struck down as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

[Austin]

What, you don't think they'll be pulling over many blonde blue-eyed people to see if they're here legally from Sweden?

"Your papers please." My God.

In any event, I would not be surprised if this is struck down as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[AndrewWiggin]

To address the OP's question:

Politics aside, the argument being used by opponents (Obama, the Administration, Hispanics, etc.) is that border enforcement should be left to the federal government per the US constitution. The question becomes whether states are able to enforce their borders (which I believe has been decided in the past, and usually to the effect that the states have overstepped their constitutionally allotted powers). In the case of the AZ law, it becomes a crime to be inside Arizona illegally-this is not necessarily the same as enforcing the border, so it will likely be yet another decision.

The argument from AZ's side is that sure, the feds have the power to enforce the border, but when they don't exercise that power, the states should have the ability to take it up.

I'm not a lawyer but that's my summary of my best understanding.

My .02 cents-I'm on AZ's side, mainly because power vacuums (Feds not enforcing) have to be filled (border enforcement is a legitimate function of government).

[TheRedlines]

I would be offended.

If this would truly be something that would upset folks, then they simply need to ask every single stop for their papers. It is something that needs to be taken care of. We have to stop ignoring this.

[gaseousclay]

Immigration laws are truly needed but this law will promote race profiling for people of brown skin including myself. I would hate to get pulled over daily to prove I was born in this great country. I would really be pissed if it happened to my daughter and my soldier son.

agreed. feels like fascism to me. I'm biracial myself and am often mistaken for either hispanic, italian or native american, even though i'm half-Japanese. I would be greatly offended if I was pulled over because of my appearance

[TonyH]

If this would truly be something that would upset folks, then they simply need to ask every single stop for their papers. It is something that needs to be taken care of. We have to stop ignoring this.

I think the point is that there wouldn't have to BE a stop in order to question someone. Anyone can be stopped at any time without regard to a crime being committed. Suspicion is not a crime. Being brown isn't either.

I live in Texas, so I'm pretty accustomed to seeing a lot of Hispanic folks every day. I never wonder what they're doing here. I work with them, I serve them, and I see them trying to create a better life for themselves.

If they are not suspected of a crime, leave them alone.

Saying them being here illegally is a crime does not make your point. Murder is illegal as well, but the police cannot stop you simply because they don't like your face.

I'm going to try to resist further comment on this thread, as I am (to put it mildly) strongly opposed to this legislation.

[C Reed]

I don't really care about immigration but any reason you give the cops to stop any one and generaly harass them is not a good one and will be abused. (no ofense to the many good LEOs on here/ out in the world I'm sure your stand up guys and I know you got a hard job but this just aint right)

[C Reed]

but the police cannot stop you simply because they don't like your face.

They do and will and a judge will back them up. "I thought the suspect was on drugs and in possession of more due to his eyes being dilated/ blood shot your honor" Good luck proving they weren't at the time.

Also the only interaction with the NYPD I have had in a year of living in NYC happened last night as I flagged down a cop car on the Ave to point out 3 kids beating on one petty badly on the street. Result the cop threatened to write me a drunk in public ticket (I was mildly buzzed after a work cocktail thing, but not stumbling or black out status) and then drove off, I yelled at the kids and they ran, sent the one who got the kicking off in an ambulance, he was in bad shape.

[TonyH]

They do and will and a judge will back them up. "I thought the suspect was on drugs and in possession of more due to his eyes being dilated/ blood shot your honor" Good luck proving they weren't at the time.

Also the only interaction with the NYPD I have had in a year of living in NYC happened last night as I flagged down a cop car on the Ave to point out 3 kids beating on one petty badly on the street. Result the cop threatened to write me a drunk in public ticket (I was mildly buzzed after a work cocktail thing, but not stumbling or black out status) and then drove off, I yelled at the kids and they ran, sent the one who got the kicking off in an ambulance, he was in bad shape.

You're making my points for me. :sad:

[Obsessed]

Back in the USSR (with apologies to Paul) . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQpTNuLiA8k

[C Reed]

You're making my points for me. :sad:

Judging by your avatar we have a lot in common. :up the (former) punx:

[Sal]

In any event, I would not be surprised if this is struck down as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

How so?

I think the point is that there wouldn't have to BE a stop in order to question someone. Anyone can be stopped at any time without regard to a crime being committed. Suspicion is not a crime. Being brown isn't either.



The new law addresses this. The law specifies that there has to be independent grounds for suspicion beyond race.


B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

[TonyH]

How so?



The new law addresses this. The law specifies that there has to be independent grounds for suspicion beyond race.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

The text that I have highlighted, and that you provided, is not included in the portion of the bill that you quote.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

The only time national origin is mentioned in the bill is in regards to employment investigations. This is found in Section 6, Paragraph B.

This bill should be read in its entirety by anyone and everyone that wishes to comment in this thread.

[Topgumby]

Well, next they'll make being here illegally illegal. The Nerve!

[RayH]

Being as I live in Arizona I feel the need to comment. The reasons for this bill being passed is because of the crime committed by illegals. In fact THE CRIME that caused it to be passed was the most recent one where a rancher down south along the border was murdered in his home by an illegal. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. But Arizona has been a hot bed of kidnappings, of illegals by illegals. Human trafficking, again of illegals and those who make their money that way are called Coyotes. And many of these kidnappings are also connected to drugs. The cartels use the Coyotes and the illegals in their operations. And another big crime here not connected to the kidnappings but are connected to the illegals has been the rise in home invasions. Forced entry with guns, robbery and assault. And the descriptions of the suspects all have them being hispanic. So far as I have read those that have been caught have all been illegal aliens. Plus there is the car theft or should I say truck theft. Trucks are a hot item, they are stolen and taken south of the border, refitted and used to bring drugs back into the states.
So basically the reasons behind the bill are meant to enforce the immigration laws already on the books and to cut back on crime committed by illegals. All those in Washington and other places decrying the law and screaming "Racist" don't live here and don't have to deal with problems that are caused by illegal immigration.

[prophetic_joe]

I am not going to get into a discussion regarding the immigration issue because i have fairly strong feelings about it however i did want to bring up something that came up in regards to the police being able to stop you for no reason. They can already do that. I spoke with a police officer friend of mine and they only have to be able to give some type of logical reason for doing so and they can go up to anyone on the street and ask to see identification. Suspicious behavior is a reason and any behavior can be labeled as suspicious as long as it is spun right.

[SRock]

Guys I'm just bookmarking this thread. I have my opinion on this particular subject but I don't feel B&B is the place to discuss it. I urge everyone to keep this discussion civil so we don't have to close this thread.

[Obsessed]

In any event, I would not be surprised if this is struck down as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.


How so?

Here's an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28legal.html?scp=2&sq=chemerinsky&st=cse) that discusses it.

[Stubblefield]

Well, next they'll make being here illegally illegal. The Nerve!
Having Nerve has pretty much been declared illegal. :turned:

[AndrewWiggin]

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

The text that I have highlighted, and that you provided, is not included in the portion of the bill that you quote.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

The only time national origin is mentioned in the bill is in regards to employment investigations. This is found in Section 6, Paragraph B.

This bill should be read in its entirety by anyone and everyone that wishes to comment in this thread.

The bill linked is not the signed legislation. The legislation recently signed by the governor does have the language quoted above.

Source. (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1070-se-maps.doc.htm)

[Sal]

Here's an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28legal.html?scp=2&sq=chemerinsky&st=cse) that discusses it.

That article never demonstrates how Federal law is trumped.

Here is the Supremacy Clause, how does the AZ law violate it?


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Obsessed]

That article never demonstrates how Federal law is trumped.

Here is the Supremacy Clause, how does the AZ law violate it?

I'm too tired (and I mean that literally, not dismissively) to get into a discussion of federal preemption. Suffice it to say that I think the Arizona law will probably be ruled unconstitutional, but not necessarily that it's a slam-dunk, which is why I said I "would not be surprised" if it is struck down.

Whether the law is a good idea or not is another question, but I've said enough on that already.

[masonjarjar]

Immigration laws are truly needed but this law will promote race profiling for people of brown skin including myself. I would hate to get pulled over daily to prove I was born in this great country. I would really be pissed if it happened to my daughter and my soldier son.

well put.

[masonjarjar]

To be quite honest I am quite tan and am mistaken quite often by hispanics to be hispanic myself. I would not mind at all to be asked to show proof at a time of being stopped by an officer. It would show me that they were doing their job and I would applaud and thank them.

**BTW, I am not trying to start a heated debate but rather am searching for a real answer to my question from a supporter of the opposition which holds merit. I apologize if it looks as otherwise.

I'm glad you have confidence that the system will treat all fairly..

But, I seem to doubt that most people would be so accepting of being stopped to show their papers on the whim of any cop with an agenda..

[ironbrewer]

This law is not the way to stop the problem of illegal immigration. You should go after the companies that hire illegals. It is easy in this day and age to make sure their social security # corresponds to them. Employers should check them and be required to do so. Creating a police state is not the way to handle this situation. If people wouldn't hire illegals, they would not come here. If I had to live somewhere illegally to take care of my family, I would.

[TonyH]

This law is not the way to stop the problem of illegal immigration. You should go after the companies that hire illegals. It is easy in this day and age to make sure their social security # corresponds to them. Employers should check them and be required to do so. Creating a police state is not the way to handle this situation. If people wouldn't hire illegals, they would not come here. If I had to live somewhere illegally to take care of my family, I would.

Agreed on all points.

[TonyH]

The bill linked is not the signed legislation. The legislation recently signed by the governor does have the language quoted above.

Source. (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1070-se-maps.doc.htm)

Thanks for the updated info.

[tempestivo]

I am a professional immigrant so to speak.I have been both legal and illegal though not in this country.I know how powerless you feel when you're an illegal. Without many words I want to make a quick point.As long as rapacious politics will try to cash in on this huge problem ther will not be a real solution .Fingerpointing will draw more of fingerpointing and politics will pretend to side with the week and powerless until the vote is casted.Silence and oblivion is what comes after!!!!

[Sal]

I'm too tired (and I mean that literally, not dismissively) to get into a discussion of federal preemption. Suffice it to say that I think the Arizona law will probably be ruled unconstitutional, but not necessarily that it's a slam-dunk, which is why I said I "would not be surprised" if it is struck down.

Whether the law is a good idea or not is another question, but I've said enough on that already.

That's fine. I disagree though, the way I understand it, the AZ references Fed law and reinforces it instead of clashing with it, but like you said we will have to wait and see what happens. It will be interesting.

[Thebigspendur]

I spent 30 years as an INS Special Agent. The State has no authority to enforce Immigration laws plain and simple. They can pass whatever law they want but in the end when they catch the aliens and call ICE to come get them ICE will probably say no then what is Arizona going to do? They won't be able to afford to hold them and they can't deport them and very quickly they will be sued for violating someones civil rights. I predict it will be a law that will never be enforced.

[Topgumby]

... but in the end when they catch the aliens and call ICE to come get them ICE will probably say no...

OK, boys and girls. Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this picture?

[Obsessed]

OK, boys and girls. Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this picture?

:confused1 Your hat looks fine to me.

[Topgumby]

:confused1 Your hat looks fine to me.

:lol: Thanks!

It's a legal immigrant from Australia, BTW.

[KarthVader]

I can't trust a police officer LOOKING for illegal immigrants, because it will all come down to an issue of color and racial profiling, regardless of what the law says. The law might be perfect, but people aren't.

My family legally immigrated from India a couple generations ago and it sucks that people are finding ways to circumvent a legal process to enter this country. But enforcing a law that asks a person to make a judgement call based on suspicion and face value, is ridiculous.

When economic times are tough and jobs are scarce, it's easy to use illegal immigration as a scapegoat. Remember, this argument has been around for ages; used on European, African and Asian immigrants. It's sad, but it seems to come down to anyone that looks different from the "norm".

Yes, there needs to be immigration reform, but racial profiling and pseudo-Fascist tactics are not the way to go.

[AndrewWiggin]

I'm trying to figure out if the reasonable suspicion provision means reasonable suspicion in terms of stopping someone in the process of another crime, or suspicion of being illegal.

I understand the concerns if it's the latter, but a lot of analysts are talking about the law granting the police the capacity to ask someone their immigration status after they've been picked up for a different crime.

This would actually make the most sense, as AZ's crime rates have increased significantly, and there were several recent, highly publicized murders committed by illegal immigrants. There's also the fact that drug cartel activity made one of AZ's cities the kidnap capital of the world recently.

As someone posted earlier, I don't understand what AZ is going to do with them once they have them in custody, since they have to be turned over to ICE. ICE isn't going to do anything with them, and if/when that happens and AZ tries to enact a law to deport illegal immigrants, that absolutely will be struck down.

[Confilo]

I would be offended.

I'll be extremely offended too. In fact I'm offended the law was passed.

[BrianL]

I need to see some papers.

[Confilo]

To be quite honest I am quite tan and am mistaken quite often by hispanics to be hispanic myself. I would not mind at all to be asked to show proof at a time of being stopped by an officer. It would show me that they were doing their job and I would applaud and thank them.

**BTW, I am not trying to start a heated debate but rather am searching for a real answer to my question from a supporter of the opposition which holds merit. I apologize if it looks as otherwise.

Do not confuse being tan with been Latinos. We come in all colors it seems you are already stereotyping us.

[AndrewWiggin]

Not that anyone cares anymore, but to clarify: initial contact with someone has to be lawful, i.e. the officer has to have reasonable suspicion for some other crime to have occurred.

In other words, there are two reasonable suspicion barriers: the first being suspicion of a crime, the second being suspicion of no documentation.

So, a police officer can't walk up and ask for papers. An officer can, after stopping someone because of articulable reasonable suspicion (meaning he can provide a rationale that a crime was about to be committed or just had been committed, not just "they look foreign"), ask for identification and documentation, if he can articulate reasonable suspicion for the person having no documentation.

It's a lot of hyperventilating for something that's not going to happen-the courts have ruled over and over again that reasonable suspicion cannot be "they look hispanic/black/insert other minority." It may still happen insofar as stops go, but the actual legal proceedings-you'll win against the cops every time.

[castlecraver]

This law is not the way to stop the problem of illegal immigration. You should go after the companies that hire illegals.

Thank you. Want to end illegal immigration? Severely fine companies who employ illegals and enforce the hell out of it.

It$ alway$ confu$sed me why that ha$n't been $eriou$ly $ugge$ted by any congre$$.

[Obsessed]

Not that anyone cares anymore, but to clarify: initial contact with someone has to be lawful, i.e. the officer has to have reasonable suspicion for some other crime to have occurred.

In other words, there are two reasonable suspicion barriers: the first being suspicion of a crime, the second being suspicion of no documentation.

Wrong.

[Austin]

I need to see some papers.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Hawkeye5]

I spent 30 years as an INS Special Agent. The State has no authority to enforce Immigration laws plain and simple. They can pass whatever law they want but in the end when they catch the aliens and call ICE to come get them ICE will probably say no then what is Arizona going to do? They won't be able to afford to hold them and they can't deport them and very quickly they will be sued for violating someones civil rights. I predict it will be a law that will never be enforced.

May a State not protect it's citizens when the Federal government neglects it's Constitutional duty?

The law does not have to be enforced! Only the threat of enforcement may send caravans leaving to the North, South, and East. Perhaps AZ could charter buses for San Francisco? They might effectively dump their problem on several other States.

And who said non-citizens have civil rights? Rights to humane treatment I would agree. But rights under the Constitution for non-citizens, or more narrowly, those here in defiance of our Federal laws? Here lies the true question.

[Hawkeye5]

Thank you. Want to end illegal immigration? Severely fine companies who employ illegals and enforce the hell out of it.

It$ alway$ confu$sed me why that ha$n't been $eriou$ly $ugge$ted by any congre$$.

Ahh Haa! Another skeptic.

[AndrewWiggin]

Wrong.

Reasoning?

[Obsessed]

Reasoning?

The law does not require police to have a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed another crime before checking their immigration status. You are reading too much into the "lawful contact" language.

[Sal]

The law does not require police to have a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed another crime before checking their immigration status. You are reading too much into the "lawful contact" language.
looks like the ambiguity has been taken care of

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/in-response-to-critics-arizona-tweaks-new-immigration-law-92495249.html


The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

I saw this story yesterday and it appears the bill is working even before it takes effect.

Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/29/national/main6442729.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsPCAnswer+(PC+Answer%3A +CBSNews.com))

[Obsessed]

Just for clarification, I don't believe the changes Sal refers to in the prior post have been formally adopted. Here's the text of the law as it currently stands, so everyone can refer to the same thing:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm

In any event, I still think it's unconstitutional, but we'll see what the courts say. (I'm shocked, shocked that more of our members who are fanatical about the Constitution aren't backing me up on this! :biggrin1:)

[Sal]

Just for clarification, I don't believe the changes Sal refers to in the prior post have been formally adopted. Here's the text of the law as it currently stands, so everyone can refer to the same thing:)
They were just approved by both the house and senate yesterday and Gov Brewers spokesman said that she will sign it.

[Obsessed]

They were just approved by both the house and senate yesterday and Gov Brewers spokesman said that she will sign it.

Good, so we can put that behind us and argue about some other aspect of it! :lol: (Just kidding, mods!)

[miamimoe]

Without debating the merits, this law will not survive its first court challenge. It violates the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, and probably violates the due process and equal protection clauses. A first year law student could win this one.

Many years ago, Governor Lawton Chiles of Florida, a rarity among politicians, an honest and capable man ordered the Florida Attorney General to sue the United States government for the monies expended by the state in housing, feeding, educating, providing health care services, etc. for the thousands of people who had come into the State of Florida illegally. The case got bounced fairly quickly. If I recall correctly, the federal appeals court conceded that the federal government was not doing its job, that the State was expending state monies as regards a federal issue, and still ruled against the State of Florida.

No, Lou in Vegas is giving 500-1 odds on this case moving past the first level of appeals.