CNN: Latino lawmakers urge veto of Arizona immigration law

[Perky72]

:secret: Don't look now but that's racial profiling...something that is apparently against the law.

It's a statistical correlation that happens to be racial in nature. Prostitute correlation is in wearing miniskirts. Mafioso correlation is in being Italian. Add location and activities to the set and reasonable suspician arises in each case, in part based on appearance. I guess it's technically racial profiling, but I don't have any problem with it. Or rather, if I did have a problem with it I'd also have a problem with all cases of law enforcement deciding to investigate anyone based on ANY particular appearance, gestures, or any other visual traits.

Also something like 1 in 12 persons in Arizona are illegal aliens. I'd also think it acceptable to declare a state of emergency and martial law and have the national guard check every single person for papers at this point. But I tend to take following the law kind of seriously, and when 500,000 in AZ (or 12,000,000 in the US) are committing a misdemeanor or felony every second for years this seems something that requires emergency measures.

So, even if this IS racial profiling, it's fine with me.

BTW, what does an Hispanic look like?

Like an hispanic. If you're saying it's not possible to tell what hispanics look like, than I guess the racial profiling danger is a red herring.

[Perky72]

Had to.

(And, BTW, he was born in NYC.)

heh.

And here's two Mongolians:

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF,

I posted before many times on "reasonable suspicion". You seem to have missed those.

Oh I've seen your attempts at reasonable suspicion, and none of them have been conclusive nor convincing.

If someone is driving without a license and insurance (or registration), I think that might be "reasonable suspicion" (ie. if they are an undocumented driver, perhaps they are an undocumented resident). I'm not convinced simply driving without a license is "reasonable suspicion", so long as registration and insurance is in place. Certainly I think driving an unregistered car would warrant "reasonable suspicion", again, if someone is not going to lawfully register their car being an undocumented immigrant is plausible.

Plausible...so now we're stopping people because something is plausible? The tags on my church van were dead until last week, I guess it was reasonable that I was an illegal while driving? Oh no wait...I'm white I can't be an illegal. People drive all the time here in Kentucky without a license and they are citizens, I guess their residency status is reasonable to suspect? Sorry but this dog won't hunt.

However, all the other things mentioned such as "not speaking english"; I don't think that would fly. There are certainly many people here legally in the country who don't speak english, in fact I'm not sure its a requirement to get a green card or visa (I know people legally here who speak little english). "Looking hispanic" clearly wouldn't fly either.

Right.

I disagree with Larry regarding his argument that "the law serves no purpose" and "this is regulating immigration". I don't believe this law will run afoul of pre-emption, although it may at the district or appeals court level due to politicized judges. It is true, there is no Federal law like this (criminal violation); however this law uses the Federal standard. I don't see why a state couldn't criminalize illegal immigrants in this manner, so long as it uses a standard that is inline with the Federal government. A California law was upheld that forbid employers from hiring illegals previously by the Supreme Court. Certainly the courts would defer to the legislative will, so long as the law itself is Constitutional.

A law making it illegal to hire illegals is not regulating immigration, that's regulating business. BTW, no one has of yet showed the reasonable suspicion clauses in the Federal Immigration laws. I keep waiting.

I don't understand currently what creates a threshold to allow the states to look at immigration status (is it type of crime).

And apparently, no body else does either, because there is no standard to be reached which opens up LEO's for abuse of the law.

I know currently some states have programs where they check the status of some people arrested; but I don't know what the criteria is. If states are allowed to do so and have been for the past couple of years, why are they blocked from doing so further?

Because they aren't charging the person with illegal immigration, they are charging them with another crime then turning them over to the Feds for deportation, Arizona's law will be different in that they will be charging them with illegal immigration. Which leads to another question, do they incarcerate the illegals for the crime of illegal immigration or are they just looking for a back door to federalize their police force?

Furthermore, anyone who runs afoul of this Arizona law will have a criminal record in Arizona. In some way it creates a way to track who they keep "catching and releasing".

See my question above, unless they incarcerate the illegals they catch they'll go from "catch and release" to "catch, tag, and release". They'll be like animal biologists in that regard.

I think screaming "the police are going to pull over anyone who looks Mexican!" looks very ignorant of the Constitution and existing case law. Any cop who does so will be facing very stiff liability and opens themselves up to constitutional violation cause of action. That's not something anyone wants. Hence, if I was whoever is in charge of police in Arizona I would set up strict guidelines for application of the "reasonable suspicion" section.

And yet it WILL happen won't it?

I'm sick of discussing this in the various places as I see so much ignorance of what police can and cannot do. To the poster from MD who said he was worried that his neighbors are going to tip off the police and question them; Courts have already ruled that anonymous tips are unreliable, so no, it won't happen. Certainly speaking spanish is not any suspicion of being in the country illegally. Neither is dress. Even simply pulling someone over and seeing they are Hispanic is not "reasonable suspicion".

SO WHAT IS?

Just about the only things I can think of that would give "reasonable suspicion":

- Driving without the proper documents (I think it is more than just license as well)

Inconclusive in determining or even hinting at residency status.

- Walking through a remote area near the border where there is no recreational reason for being there. Camping overnight in the same area where there is no recreational facilities.

- Trespassing on private property near the border.

These are better, but don't isn't this the area where there is border patrol? Are the police now going to run border control checks?

I'm not sure if AZ was able to check immigration status on these cases; but the law goes further than simply checking immigration status and turning over to the ICE, it makes the Federal immigration violation a state crime.

Again, catch and incarcerate, or tag and release?

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's a statistical correlation that happens to be racial in nature. Prostitute correlation is in wearing miniskirts. Mafioso correlation is in being Italian. Add location and activities to the set and reasonable suspicion arises in each case, in part based on appearance. I guess it's technically racial profiling, but I don't have any problem with it. Or rather, if I did have a problem with it I'd also have a problem with all cases of law enforcement deciding to investigate anyone based on ANY particular appearance, gestures, or any other visual traits.

They can't, you can't just drive up a woman wearing a mini-skirt and suppose she is a hooker, anymore than you can start questioning broken nosed Italians in New Jersey for being in the mob. Good lord if this is how the police operate now then we live in sad times.

Also something like 1 in 12 persons in Arizona are illegal aliens. I'd also think it acceptable to declare a state of emergency and martial law and have the national guard check every single person for papers at this point. But I tend to take following the law kind of seriously, and when 500,000 in AZ (or 12,000,000 in the US) are committing a misdemeanor or felony every second for years this seems something that requires emergency measures.

So, even if this IS racial profiling, it's fine with me.

So, you're fine with police breaking the law in order to catch people who are breaking the law? Interesting logical progression you have there.

Like an hispanic. If you're saying it's not possible to tell what hispanics look like, than I guess the racial profiling danger is a red herring.

What does an Hispanic look like? I learned in the 6th grade that you can't use the word you are defining in the definition of the word. The point is, and you know it, that racial profiling which will be used (illegally) will only target a certain type of Hispanic; i.e. Incan and Mayan descendants. As such racial profiling which you seem to be OK with won't even be as effective as you want it to be. Which is funny because now it seems that you're suggesting that the police not only break the law to catch people breaking the law but for the police to do so in a way that is not efficient nor accurate.

[Perky72]

ASF, since the federal government basically refuses to settle the illegal immigration "problem" one way or the other (via serious enforcement or amnesty or whatever)--what do you suggest states who DO see it as a problem do? Just sit back and wait?

Perhaps one solution that would be less possibly unconstitional is for states to enact their own citizenry laws, requiring all residents have an ID card for that purpose, and penalties/deportation from the state for not having it.

That would be a pretty draconian measure as well, but--what other options are there for a state inundated with illegal aliens, and a Fed that is content with the status quo?

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF, since the federal government basically refuses to settle the illegal immigration "problem" one way or the other (via serious enforcement or amnesty or whatever)--what do you suggest states who DO see it as a problem do? Just sit back and wait?

LOL, yep, those are the only two choices I guess, racially profile and regulate immigration (which is a Federal job not State) or do nothing...yep, those are the only two. How about doing like everyone else does and raise such a stink that they have to address the issue? Passing horrible law is not the answer.

Perhaps one solution that would be less possibly unconstitional is for states to enact their own citizenry laws, requiring all residents have an ID card for that purpose, and penalties/deportation from the state for not having it.

Yeah, that wouldn't be at all like oppressive regimes do.

That would be a pretty draconian measure as well, but--what other options are there for a state inundated with illegal aliens, and a Fed that is content with the status quo?

Arrest the criminal element which they already have the right and obligation to do so. Allow the Federal government to grant amnesty and a reasonable path to citizenship for those who are here.

[Jumbo]

heh.

And here's two Mongolians:

And here's an American Indian :pfft:

"Beam me up, Chief Scotty"

[DeaconBlue]

LOL, yep, those are the only two choices I guess, racially profile and regulate immigration (which is a Federal job not State) or do nothing...yep, those are the only two. How about doing like everyone else does and raise such a stink that they have to address the issue? Passing horrible law is not the answer.

Yeah, that wouldn't be at all like oppressive regimes do.

Arrest the criminal element which they already have the right and obligation to do so. Allow the Federal government to grant amnesty and a reasonable path to citizenship for those who are here.

I wasnt satisfied with the answer. Hell I'm not sure I even like classifying it actually as an answer, but whatever. You say raise a stink until the federal government does it's job and addresses the issue. How EXACTLY do you think should the federal government be addressing this issue?Please be specific.

Edit : Sry,Just read the bottom of your post , as usual I find the beginning of your posts generally so maddening that getting to end is difficult for me. I dont favor amnesty because it weakens the perception of our laws in general. I might agree with making an easier path to citizenship though. That said I still feel that if you sneak into the proverbial club without paying cover you get kicked out. Thats not draconian its appropriate. To extend the analogy breaking that rule(i.e. law) might also be a reasonable reason to ban you from the establishment permenantly. Again sry about not gutting my way trhrough the whole post.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I wasn't satisfied with the answer. Hell I'm not sure I even like classifying it actually as an answer, but whatever. You say raise a stink until the federal government does it's job and addresses the issue. How EXACTLY do you think should the federal government be addressing this issue?Please be specific.

I've given my list several times in this thread.

1) Secure the border...which is impossible to do so efficiently or even effectively. But secure it more than it is, a wall or fence is not the answer.

2) Real Federal immigration reform

3) Removing incentives for businesses to hire illegals.

4) Amnesty and a realistic path to citizenship for those who are already here.

5) Enforce the law, which means spending money, a lot more money, and in with all of the budget hawks out there I'm wondering if that is even realistic.

In the end, right now, I don't think there is much that can be done that will be effective at stemming the tide of illegal immigration until Mexico gets an economy that's worth a darn.

Some say that we can't afford amnesty, but then they say we can't afford the status quo, and yet we still can't afford to close the border entirely. I guess that means we're between a rock and a hard place, and under a bolder.

[Perky72]

They can't, you can't just drive up a woman wearing a mini-skirt and suppose she is a hooker, anymore than you can start questioning broken nosed Italians in New Jersey for being in the mob. Good lord if this is how the police operate now then we live in sad times.

I did cite some examples. It's not just wearing a miniskirt, it's wearing it while loitering on a corner known for prostitution. Put the girl in a business suit, have her looking lost, and it's slightly more likely she's asking passersby for directions rather than her services. Suspician is based on a large assortment of behaviors and traits assessed visually, at least from afar. Some of these traits are in dress, some in gesture, some yes, in race.

So, you're fine with police breaking the law in order to catch people who are breaking the law? Interesting logical progression you have there.

I'm not sure this bill is breaking the law, if cops follow it to the letter. If the courts find the law is unconstitutional than I'd object to it. I'm not convinced it is, even if does in part allow for racial profiling (and I haven't seen anything like that explicitly in the bill).

As for individual cops exhibiting racial profiling, that would also have to be decided by courts. I've simply offered scenarios where it isn't much different than other visual appearance reasons for rousing suspician that courts seem to think is okay. But if that's found unconstitutional, I'd object to individual officers using race as one correlating cause. I'm not convinced it would be found unconstitutional. We might see.

And if it's an emergency state/national security situation and the law allows for some profiling in such, it would seem to be legal. Perhaps the courts will decide that too.

What does an Hispanic look like? I learned in the 6th grade that you can't use the word you are defining in the definition of the word.

An hispanic looks like an hispanic as much as a caucasian looks like a caucasian. "Races" are sloppy attempts at classifying certain ethnic/lineal groups by superficial features. There'll be outliers, but "races" tend to share common features. I don't really know what "hispanic" refers to, if it's of Spanish decent, or what. Call the predominant illegal aliens whatever--hispanic, latino, south/central American...but most of them share some common features. Dark hair, dark skin, and brown eyes for a few.

What "race" would you call most illegal aliens in Arizona? Could you make any guesses about what their facial features would tend to be? Be honest now.

The point is, and you know it, that racial profiling which will be used (illegally) will only target a certain type of Hispanic; i.e. Incan and Mayan descendants. As such racial profiling which you seem to be OK with won't even be as effective as you want it to be. Which is funny because now it seems that you're suggesting that the police not only break the law to catch people breaking the law but for the police to do so in a way that is not efficient nor accurate.

It'll be more effective than what the Fed is doing to curtail illegal immigration, which is virtually nothing.

[Perky72]

LOL, yep, those are the only two choices I guess, racially profile and regulate immigration (which is a Federal job not State) or do nothing...yep, those are the only two. How about doing like everyone else does and raise such a stink that they have to address the issue? Passing horrible law is not the answer.

It's raising more of a stink than anything else I've seen since Reagan's amnesty.

Yeah, that wouldn't be at all like oppressive regimes do.

Arrest the criminal element which they already have the right and obligation to do so. Allow the Federal government to grant amnesty and a reasonable path to citizenship for those who are here.

"allow the federal government"? Seriously? They've had 20+ years to reform/streamline immigration and enforce the law. They could've done it last month. They could do it next month. They've refused.

My federal solution is almost exactly like yours in your following post. The problem, and it's considered a HUGE problem in some states (not Kentucky) is that the fed is doing nothing and there are no signs it's going to do anything. States in the Southwest feel a big burden, and without federal aid they're going to do more and more crazy things like in this bill. And it'll be, at least for me, completely undestandable.

(and if the fed continues to prefer the status quo, I hope these crazy things succeed, as long as they're Constitutional)

[AsburySkinsFan]

I did cite some examples. It's not just wearing a miniskirt, it's wearing it while loitering on a corner known for prostitution. Put the girl in a business suit, have her looking lost, and it's slightly more likely she's asking passersby for directions rather than her services. Suspician is based on a large assortment of behaviors and traits assessed visually, at least from afar. Some of these traits are in dress, some in gesture, some yes, in race.

And yet they can't arrest even a prostitute unless they catch her soliciting. Standing on a street corner in a miniskirt at 2am is still not illegal.

I'm not sure this bill is breaking the law, if cops follow it to the letter. If the courts find the law is unconstitutional than I'd object to it. I'm not convinced it is, even if does in part allow for racial profiling (and I haven't seen anything like that explicitly in the bill).

And yet with the reasonable suspicion clause in the bill there is apparently no "letter of the law" to follow because there seems to be no quantifiable standard for reasonable suspicion.

As for individual cops exhibiting racial profiling, that would also have to be decided by courts. I've simply offered scenarios where it isn't much different than other visual appearance reasons for rousing suspicion that courts seem to think is okay. But if that's found unconstitutional, I'd object to individual officers using race as one correlating cause. I'm not convinced it would be found unconstitutional. We might see.

And yet the law is written so ambiguously and yet with such a mandate that it will require racial profiling.

And if it's an emergency state/national security situation and the law allows for some profiling in such, it would seem to be legal. Perhaps the courts will decide that too.

The only way to do that is to consider illegals terrorists, and that will NOT end well.

An hispanic looks like an hispanic as much as a caucasian looks like a caucasian. "Races" are sloppy attempts at classifying certain ethnic/lineal groups by superficial features. There'll be outliers, but "races" tend to share common features. I don't really know what "hispanic" refers to, if it's of Spanish decent, or what. Call the predominant illegal aliens whatever--hispanic, latino, south/central American...but most of them share some common features. Dark hair, dark skin, and brown eyes for a few.

This simply shows that you don't understand what the word Hispanic actually means. Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz and Sammy Sosa are not representatives of outliers within the Dominican Republic, no in Haiti; and yet they are Hispanic, this is why earlier in this thread I spoke about the need for us to learn more about mestizos.

What "race" would you call most illegal aliens in Arizona? Could you make any guesses about what their facial features would tend to be? Be honest now.

Most likely of Incan and Mayan descent, yet to profile them means that they do not have equal protection under the law...and again we're back to the Constitutionality of racial profiling.

It'll be more effective than what the Fed is doing to curtail illegal immigration, which is virtually nothing.

Again, bad law is not a valid option when faced with sloth. Someone said this earlier in this thread; "hey at least they're doing something." Yeah, something inefficient, ineffective, unconstitutional, and just simply wrong.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's raising more of a stink than anything else I've seen since Reagan's amnesty.

People all the time say that they hate activist judges, well I hate activist legislation; i.e. legislation that is never intended for be realized but to force a someone else's hand, and if that's what this is then it is a costly gamble; in finances and in the political realm and in the good will of millions of people across this country, and this is not even to mention the political cost to the GOP.

"allow the federal government"? Seriously? They've had 20+ years to reform/streamline immigration and enforce the law. They could've done it last month. They could do it next month. They've refused.

Obama wants to do it next month.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5765Y420090807

My federal solution is almost exactly like yours in your following post. The problem, and it's considered a HUGE problem in some states (not Kentucky) is that the fed is doing nothing and there are no signs it's going to do anything. States in the Southwest feel a big burden, and without federal aid they're going to do more and more crazy things like in this bill. And it'll be, at least for me, completely understandable.

They can do whatever they wish as long as it is Constitutional and legal and doesn't usurp Federal authority.

[Mickalino]

Arizona Tea is putting a big ad out saying that their tea is NOT made in Arizona

[DeaconBlue]

I've given my list several times in this thread.

1) Secure the border...which is impossible to do so efficiently or even effectively. But secure it more than it is, a wall or fence is not the answer.

2) Real Federal immigration reform

3) Removing incentives for businesses to hire illegals.

4) Amnesty and a realistic path to citizenship for those who are already here.

5) Enforce the law, which means spending money, a lot more money, and in with all of the budget hawks out there I'm wondering if that is even realistic.

In the end, right now, I don't think there is much that can be done that will be effective at stemming the tide of illegal immigration until Mexico gets an economy that's worth a darn.

Some say that we can't afford amnesty, but then they say we can't afford the status quo, and yet we still can't afford to close the border entirely. I guess that means we're between a rock and a hard place, and under a bolder.

Well 1,2, and 5 are non-answers. I mean even you admit that they are just non specific ideas with no real clues as to how they might be implemented. I told you in the edit of my last response about how I feel about amnesty. I think we'd be more willing than you might think to spend money on enforcement of this issue. Unfortunately I think the political and racial issues involved will make any remotely efficient enforcement immpossible. I think we are going to be left ,to use another anology, sitting around trying to figure out how to make an omelette withough actually breaking any eggs.

Well maybe the problem will fix itself. When our debt comes due and inflation balloons and many more of us are unemplyed because our "wealthy" employers are no longer willing or able to employ as many of us,perhaps, this country won't look as inticing. Maybe home won't look so bad to them? :whoknows:

[Perky72]

This simply shows that you don't understand what the word Hispanic actually means. Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz and Sammy Sosa are not representatives of outliers within the Dominican Republic, no in Haiti; and yet they are Hispanic, this is why earlier in this thread I spoke about the need for us to learn more about mestizos.

Fair enough. I haven't looked into demographics of illegal immigrants, have just been assuming the vast majority were from Mexico, so "mexican-looking" or "hispanic" as I'd latched onto.

Again, bad law is not a valid option when faced with sloth. Someone said this earlier in this thread; "hey at least they're doing something." Yeah, something inefficient, ineffective, unconstitutional, and just simply wrong.

I'm not sure it is a bad law. Of those four things, it's more efficient than what the fed is doing, more effective, perhaps not Constitutional (which yes, is an immediate no-go), and I think it might be "simply right" for states to protect themselves, if they do so legally and the fed is leaving them out to dry for decades.

I don't see it too much different than certain localities enacting weapons laws more stringent than Federal weapons laws, if they see weapons posession/type as enough of a problem. The DC total ban was declared unconstitutional, but individual states can still be more stringent, like Cali's old "assault weapons" ban, and recent banning .50 cal ammunition and failed attempt at banning .50 cal weapons. I don't see anything wrong with states redundantly criminalizing any federal crime, or raising it from a misdemeanor federally to a felony in the state. Just because the nature of the crime of illegal residency has so far only had a federal punishment doesn't mean states deciding it should also have a state punishment is wrong. Kind of an aside paragraph.

[Fergasun]

ASF,

I quote the Arizona law.

Larry,

It's not going to be a crime if a LEO doesn't check immigration status.

When it goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules the law is not a regulation of immigration, is the only time both of you will be satisfied. Otherwise neither of you will be satisfied with your position. Read the case-law... all I can say.

[DeaconBlue]

I don't see anything wrong with states redundantly criminalizing any federal crime,

It may not be wrong but it is both idiotic and futile. If you weren't capable of enforcing the first law successfully what makes you think you'll do any better withe second? Its a pet peeve of mine and I really think its dumb.

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF,

I quote the Arizona law.

I thought so, now quote the Federal law where you think it mirrors or is in harmony with, specifically I'm looking for "reasonable suspicion" clauses in reference to verifying residency status.

[Larry]

ASF,

I quote the Arizona law.

Larry,

It's not going to be a crime if a LEO doesn't check immigration status.

I haven't been on all 46 pages of this thread, but was wondering if anyone actually posted the text of the law? If not, here it is.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_04-19-10_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm

Here is part of the text which would seem to be applicable to a lot of the discussion here.

Enforcement of Immigration Law

· Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

· Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

· Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.

· Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

· Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:

Ø A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

(I'll also point out that the title of the portion he quoted is "Enforcement of Immigration Law".)

[NavyDave]

Hispanics can be of any race but if its not helpful to the left's agenda they are to be perceived a certain way.

Frankly if you are an illegal alien from south of the border, north of the border or from across the big pond, you are guilty of a crime. If you have the proper ID saying you are here legally smile and have a nice day, just like those of us who experienced D.W.B do.

Or is it that liberals / progressives as well as the cheap and the greedy in business do not want to enforce the laws when it comes to illegal aliens being apprehended and sent back as well as building a fence and point agents and or the National Guard on the border since it will cut into either potential voters or basically the slave labor force?

[Perky72]

Or is it that liberals / progressives as well as the cheap and the greedy in business do not want to enforce the laws when it comes to illegal aliens being apprehended and sent back as well as building a fence and point agents and or the National Guard on the border since it will cut into either potential voters or basically the slave labor force?

It's a lot of that imo. I'm a liberal, but most liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans want the status quo to continue. Probably a terrible analogy but it reminds me of how the hawks in Israel and Palestine prefer to continue that violence. And it's just as difficult to get our politicians to enact immigration reform as to get those hawks to the peace table.

Illegal immigrants are too valuable to too many in power--votes, labor so cheap they work below min. wage, I suppose even gerrymandering purposes if some take part in censuses or vote. I just wish the government would at least just give up the ghost and open the borders completely, maybe even reduce the minimum wage and workplace protection laws if they prefer that to be the de facto reality for part of America's residents. Just do something conclusive.

It's bordering on cognitive dissonance that the fed currently has the balls to call out Arizona for essentially doing the job they're unwilling to do.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Hispanics can be of any race but if its not helpful to the left's agenda they are to be perceived a certain way.

Personally, I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond. I know that you love to run with your own personally constructed entirely biased narrative and that you'd never allow any actual facts to interrupt that precious fiction; but if you were to actually read through the thread instead of dropping your classic thread bomb rants you would have actually found that I was the one who introduced into this thread that fact that there isn't a single Hispanic "race" and that it is often referred to as mestizo.

Frankly if you are an illegal alien from south of the border, north of the border or from across the big pond, you are guilty of a crime. If you have the proper ID saying you are here legally smile and have a nice day, just like those of us who experienced D.W.B do.

Fine and dandy, just make sure that the police are searching and asking for these documents in accordance with the Constitution...you know that paper you swore to defend.

Or is it that liberals / progressives as well as the cheap and the greedy in business do not want to enforce the laws when it comes to illegal aliens being apprehended and sent back as well as building a fence and point agents and or the National Guard on the border since it will cut into either potential voters or basically the slave labor force?

LOL, see there you go again spinning your wonderful yarn, you do of course realize that Republican governors and Republican senators are also speaking out against this law, right? Oh no, sorry its only the Democrats in your narrative sorry to inject facts into your fairy-tale.

[Fergasun]

I thought so, now quote the Federal law where you think it mirrors or is in harmony with, specifically I'm looking for "reasonable suspicion" clauses in reference to verifying residency status.

States are allowed to make their own laws you know. So long as this law doesn't create a separate classification of people, it is a valid law. You have ignored this for the whole however many posts I've made on the subject.

But the Court has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised.

The Court reasoned that "the fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not render it a regulation of immigration, which is essentially a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain.

There are two issues:

1) Is the law unconstitutional?

2) Is the application of the law in a certain case/controversy unconstitutional?

For 1, I say "no". The law is perfectly constitutional, given what the Supreme Court has allowed states to do. Do you guys see the definition of "regulation of immigration" up there? Yes! This law doesn't "determine who should and should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain". Now, I flip the burden of proof to you... show me where this law "regulates immigration"?

For 2, of course there are concerns; there are always concerns. I think New York's "Stop and Frisk" program has a lot of concerns. I think when cops can say, "smells like weed" and search cars during a traffic stop there are concerns. But we don't simply bar enforcement of laws that are duefully passed through a democratic process and facially constitutional due to concerns over the application of those laws.

ASF and Larry, I applaud you for your strong concern over racial profiling and the expansion of police powers. However, I disagree because a) this law doesn't allow racial profiling, and I don't believe it an "expansion" of police powers because it doesn't create a class of people here legally that are policed. As to the concern that innocent citizens will be detained unconstitutionally, that's true but then again, innocent citizens are always under that threat.

So let's say a US citizen is pulled over during a traffic stop, and in the course of that traffic stop, the cop finds out that he doesn't have a license or registration. This objective, non-race-based measure triggers suspicion that he might be here unlawfully. So, the US citizen is cited and given a paper to appear in court within 30 days or so as would happen with any other law (or they could be arrested and given bail...). When they have their court date they show their papers and prove that they are a US citizen.

[twa]

It's bordering on cognitive dissonance that the fed currently has the balls to call out Arizona for essentially doing the job they're unwilling to do.

Yes and I feel there will be a backlash even from many Hispanics.

The Latino lawmakers better be careful of overstepping or become irrelevant to all but extreme partisans.