CNN: Latino lawmakers urge veto of Arizona immigration law

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

So you're saying that you can't find the parallel language in immigration law? That's what I asked for, you and others keep saying that this law mirrors/is in harmony with Federal Law if so then show me. Oh and not the benign parts of the law show me where the crux of this debate "reasonable suspicion" is the standard for a mandated residency status check. That's all I've asked for repeatedly.

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"?

Enforcement of immigration is part of the regulation of immigration, just as enforcement in all other areas is part of the regulations that exist.

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.

Really, you don't bar enforcement of laws over concerns that they allow for unconstitutional enforcement? I say allow because I have yet to hear any compelling quantifiable evidence scenario where an officer would suspect someone was an illegal that didn't involve racial profiling, hearsay, or police patrolling the border. Maybe..."Hmmm smells like an illegal", will stand up in court.

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,

Well the law says it doesn't, and yet with the reasonable suspicion clause still in there and without any scenarios that meet that ambiguous standard matched up with the mandate under threat of law suit to enforce this law...there will be 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.

Well Sheriff Arpaio would disagree with you, because he has stated that this law gives him new authority.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-police-launch-fir_n_558448.html

I will add as a caveat that this law with the changes does not allow them to investigate people who weren't first committing another crime; the article linked was prior to the governor's changing the law in that regard.

As to the concern that innocent citizens will be detained unconstitutionally, that's true but then again, innocent citizens are always under that threat.

You seem very nonchalant about citizens being detained unconstitutionally and that is worrisome; but what you also forget is that a criminal yes even an illegal can be detained unconstitutionally and if they are than any conviction or evidence gets thrown out. So, if it is found that a illegal was detained based on racial profiling then no matter how sure they are of his/her status they must by law drop the charges.

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.

Driving without a license or registration is not evidence of illegal residency status; what do you want to bet that a Caucasian never gets suspected of being in Arizona illegally because they are driving without a license or registration? So, what you really meant for your scenario to say was "let's say a US citizen who is also hispanic is pulled over..." The only way your scenario works is if "this objective, non-race-based measure" applies to EVERYONE...which it will obviously not. What's more is that using this standard the police would only be allowed to investigate the driver, since no one else in the car is under suspicion for committing a crime.

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

Question.

What do you want the Fed to do? And please don't say "enforce immigration laws" that's too ambiguous and a bit dishonest because it assumes that the Border Patrol isn't enforcing the laws, it assumes that there aren't INS raids etc. I've been asked repeatedly in this thread for my ideas on how to move forward and every time it has been agreed upon that a 2000 mile border is impossible to secure; save without spending trillions of dollars on a Berlin Wall.

Do you want them to spend more money, hire more border patrol? What? How is the Fed specifically not doing its job?

[Fergasun]

What do you want to bet that a Caucasian never gets suspected of being in Arizona illegally because they are driving without a license or registration? So, what you really meant for your scenario to say was "let's say a US citizen who is also hispanic is pulled over..." The only way your scenario works is if "this objective, non-race-based measure" applies to EVERYONE...which it will obviously not. What's more is that using this standard the police would only be allowed to investigate the driver, since no one else in the car is under suspicion for committing a crime.

See, this is your argument right here. "Caucasian never gets suspected of being in Arizona illegally". I really did mean a white-born-and-bred US citizen in my example. I said, and I contend, this standard has to apply to everyone. White, black, brown, yellow, green! If DoJ finds that white-people are never found to be suspected of in Arizona illegally there will be civil rights lawsuits galore.

You already assume: a) police officers are racist and can't possibly understand what a "civil rights violation" is, nor do they care if they commit them; the DoJ is not going to be mad-dogging this and getting statistics from the police on who falls under this law, even though this type of law would be exactly why we have a DoJ civil rights unit.

I've already shown you why I think this law doesn't fall under pre-emption, and why its not a "regulation of immigration". Supreme Court case-law is just as good as Federal law. The Supreme Court has ruled that states can enact laws regarding illegal aliens if they so choose; so long as they don't discriminate against aliens here legally and US citizens.

I'm not nonchalant about 4th Amendment violations; simply realistic. If the police wanted to racially profile they would and could do it already in Arizona.

[twa]

Do you want them to spend more money, hire more border patrol? What? How is the Fed specifically not doing its job?

Streamline deportation and taking custody of detained illegals,employment verification and enforcement,eliminate sanctuary cities and aid programs that cater to them.

Known illegal immigrants being released needs to stop as well as delays in deportation.... opening up more legal immigration would be nice as well

11-20 million illegals(the majority of which are in border states) and you ask How they are not doing their damn job?

[AsburySkinsFan]

See, this is your argument right here. "Caucasian never gets suspected of being in Arizona illegally". I really did mean a white-born-and-bred US citizen in my example. I said, and I contend, this standard has to apply to everyone. White, black, brown, yellow, green! If DoJ finds that white-people are never found to be suspected of in Arizona illegally there will be civil rights lawsuits galore.

Well that clarification does indeed mean a lot.

You already assume: a) police officers are racist and can't possibly understand what a "civil rights violation" is, nor do they care if they commit them; the DoJ is not going to be mad-dogging this and getting statistics from the police on who falls under this law, even though this type of law would be exactly why we have a DoJ civil rights unit.

No, I assume that some will feel the real pressure to illustrate that they are enforcing the law and in order to maintain that appearance they will resort to racial profiling.

I've already shown you why I think this law doesn't fall under pre-emption, and why its not a "regulation of immigration". Supreme Court case-law is just as good as Federal law. The Supreme Court has ruled that states can enact laws regarding illegal aliens if they so choose; so long as they don't discriminate against aliens here legally and US citizens.

Actually I believe you showed where states can regulate businesses unless I missed an argument that you made somewhere along the line.

I'm not nonchalant about 4th Amendment violations; simply realistic. If the police wanted to racially profile they would and could do it already in Arizona.

I am realistic about it too and whenever you have a group of people who are already marginalized then it becomes very easy to abuse them and their rights.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Streamline deportation and taking custody of detained illegals,employment verification and enforcement,eliminate sanctuary cities and aid programs that cater to them.

Well that's a mouthful. Streamlining is fine but if you haven't secured the border then you're simply catching and releasing. Employment verification? So now employers are going to be pseudo-deputized into immigration enforcement? Eliminating sanctuary cities and aid programs: well for one who has been from memory a State's rights advocate it would seem pretty heavy handed for the Fed to force states and cities in this way.

Known illegal immigrants being released needs to stop as well as delays in deportation

Catch and release...what about the border?

.... opening up more legal immigration would be nice as well

Agreed.

11-20 million illegals(the majority of which are in border states) and you ask How they are not doing their damn job?

Those are the biggest numbers I've ever heard as estimates here, 10.8 is the number I've heard recently

Do you or do you not agree that unless the stream across the border can be stopped (wall, better southern economy, lack of incentives) that trying to enforce these immigration laws is like trying to drink from a fire hose?

[Larry]

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.

No, we've responded to the completely false right wing talking point, repeated over and over again, that "this law is the same as federal law".

It isn't. It never was. It was never intended to be.

[Fergasun]

Larry,

This law does not classify aliens here legally and US citizens any differently than federal laws. Is that more precise?

Why has the other Arizona law been upheld at both the District and Appeals Court level? Because the Federal Courts have found it doesn't decide who can and cannot stay in the country legally.

I'm not trying to sound like a right-wing-talker. As someone who supports our current immigration laws and sympathetic to states trying to deal with the Federal non-enforcement issue, I admire the approach Arizona has taken through their state laws to reinforce Federal immigration policy. I'm trying to wade through and understand the legal implications.

I just don't understand this, if the position is that this law will be administered in a way that is racist, you are essentially saying:

a) Police are going to racially profile (and commit civil rights violations).

The Department of Justice isn't going to monitor to ensure no civil rights violations.

c) No one will bring a case/controversy before the courts on whether police racially profiled.

If you have that view, which I'll consider extreme; overturning this one law isn't going to change the fact that the police will still be able to racially profile.

(Edit to add)* Of course my view is seen as overly trusting of cops; but I also trust the legal and justice system to deal with situations when the cops go wrong as well.

[Larry]

Question.

What do you want the Fed to do? And please don't say "enforce immigration laws" that's too ambiguous and a bit dishonest because it assumes that the Border Patrol isn't enforcing the laws, it assumes that there aren't INS raids etc. I've been asked repeatedly in this thread for my ideas on how to move forward and every time it has been agreed upon that a 2000 mile border is impossible to secure; save without spending trillions of dollars on a Berlin Wall.

Do you want them to spend more money, hire more border patrol? What? How is the Fed specifically not doing its job?

How about:

1) Provide a reliable system whereby people such as law enforcement and employers can verify a person's legal or illegal status, in the time it presently takes to verify a credit card.

2) Either provide some form of federal ID card which shows a person's immigration status, or provide the tools to permit the states to provide such identification.

3) When an illegal is in custody, the feds show up, take and custody of the suspect. Provide the suspect with his Constitutional right to Due Process. (Which, except in very rare cases, should take less than a week. In fact, I think a day should be reasonable. And no, bail should not be permitted except in very rare cases.) And ship his Philly out of the country.

Just some ideas.

[Larry]

Catch and release...what about the border?

1) Catch and release in Mexico (or wherever else) isn't the same as the current system of catch and release here.

2) And I'm curious. At some places in this thread, we have illegals held up as heroes, struggling mightily against overwhelming odds for the noble purpose of preventing the deaths of their loved ones.

Yet in other cases, we have people on the same side (maybe even the same people, I don't know) claiming that even catching them is a waste of effort because they'll just take the next bus to Dallas.

[DeaconBlue]

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.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=8cfr

§ Sec. 287.8 Standards for enforcement activities. ( Section revised 6/13/03; 68 FR 35273 )

(2) If the immigration officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States, the immigration officer may briefly detain the person for questioning.

Havent read the AZ law all the way through but I imagine this is close.

[Larry]

Havent read the AZ law all the way through but I imagine this is close.

Actually, I think that is pretty close.

The part I've seen of the AZ statute supposedly requires the officer to detain the suspect. But then again, I think that's a summary of the law rather than the actual text.

Of course, now we're talking about what's normal procedure for people who ate standing at the US border or at a border patrol checkpoint, vs what's acceptable procedure on the streets of a US city.

(As a second example, law enforcement does have the right to demand that US Citizens prove their citizenship by producing a passport. At the international border.)

For example, I'll point out that people who are crossing international borders can be searched without a warrant. In fact, without any justification whatsoever. Simply because the courts have ruled that people woh are crossing an international border are supposed to expect a lower standard of privacy.

But, I'd agree. Looks like the part you've quoted is pretty close to AZ.

[twa]

Well that's a mouthful. Streamlining is fine but if you haven't secured the border then you're simply catching and releasing. Employment verification? So now employers are going to be pseudo-deputized into immigration enforcement? Eliminating sanctuary cities and aid programs: well for one who has been from memory a State's rights advocate it would seem pretty heavy handed for the Fed to force states and cities in this way.

Catch and release...what about the border?

Agreed.

Those are the biggest numbers I've ever heard as estimates here, 10.8 is the number I've heard recently

Do you or do you not agree that unless the stream across the border can be stopped (wall, better southern economy, lack of incentives) that trying to enforce these immigration laws is like trying to drink from a fire hose?

Removing the incentives to come here(and actually removing known ones) is the biggest change needed.

Employers have a responsibility to obey the laws and regulations as far as hiring.(just as in other employment issues)

Allowing illegals is no different than allowing discrimination or abuse and is ALREADY a business legal responsibility under the law..there is no deputation needed ..it is law

ENABLE them and enforce violations for offenders

States rights end at clear federal responsibilities such as enforcing immigration...it is a clear federal responsibility(that it is neglecting)

States are not free to flaunt federal power that is well established and clear in the law

as far as the border do your best,but just as you would not allow trespassing if someone gets past a fence,enforcement IN country has to be done when you leave the gate open

[Fergasun]

I wouldn't mind these types of laws as part of a "comprehensive" effort at controlling illegal immigration.

twa,

States are not flaunting immigration laws. They clearly will be turning over illegal immigrants to the Federal Government.

[twa]

twa,

States are not flaunting immigration laws. They clearly will be turning over illegal immigrants to the Federal Government.

Any state that allows sanctuary cities are.and there are many

We also need much more of this for both illegals and legal immigrants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36877027/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

The three-day sweep — dubbed Operation Cross Check by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials — was the largest the agency has ever conducted targeting foreign nationals convicted of crimes. The convicted criminals have already served their sentences and authorities will now work to deport them.

[Rudechain]

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=8cfr

§ Sec. 287.8 Standards for enforcement activities. ( Section revised 6/13/03; 68 FR 35273 )

(2) If the immigration officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States, the immigration officer may briefly detain the person for questioning.

Havent read the AZ law all the way through but I imagine this is close.

Well i think the problem lies in "reasonable suspicion". How can you tell an illegal alien from a citizen? I don't believe you can tell by dress, dialect, or econimic status.

And I do believe the AZ law allows the citizenry to sue law enforcement if they are not adhering to the new law. If your unable to distinguish undocumented aliens from legal citizens on sight, then just how do you do it?

Now I don't believe anyone has had any problem if you detain someone for other transgressions to check on their status. But there in lies the crux of the argument.

If someone is here on a student or work visa, and does not leave when it expires, then they are breaking immigration law. If they are walking down the street with friends, how do you determine one's status in this situation. How does the law enforcement officer try to uphold this law and at the same time not violate anyone's rights?

I do understand that AZ felt they needed to do something, but perhaps the bill writing was done without as much thought as it should have. Notice that this law has already begun being amended and it's still has yet to go into effect.

When you need to amend legislation before it's even been put into practice, then perhaps you sould take a closer look at the legislative process that enacted the law.

[wysknz1]

Latino lawmakers urge veto of Arizona immigration law

Washington (CNN) --"When you institutionalize a law like this one, you are targeting and discriminating at a wholesale level against a group of people,"

Click on the link for the full article

Yeah, you're targeting law breakers......

[Seabee1973]

No, we've responded to the completely false right wing talking point, repeated over and over again, that "this law is the same as federal law".

It isn't. It never was. It was never intended to be.

Just because you have argued doenst make it that the bills are seperate IO know you are smarter than that Larry.

[Larry]

Just because you have argued doenst make it that the bills are seperate IO know you are smarter than that Larry.

I have pointed out the differences.

Just because you've ignored them and repeated the talking point, doesn't make it true.

[Jumbo]

First, apologies if I missed this being posted earlier, just thought it informative.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm-people-estimated-number-illegal-immigrants

Estimated number of Illegal Immigrants (most recent) by state

Showing latest available data.

Rank States Amount

# 1 California: 2,209,000

# 2 Texas: 1,041,000

# 3 New York: 489,000

# 4 Illinois: 432,000

# 5 Florida: 337,000

# 6 Arizona: 283,000

# 7 Georgia: 228,000

# 8 New Jersey: 221,000

# 9 North Carolina: 206,000

# 10 Colorado: 144,000

# 11 Washington: 136,000

# 12 Virginia: 103,000

# 13 Nevada: 101,000

# 14 Oregon: 90,000

# 15 Massachusetts: 87,000

# 16 Michigan: 70,000

# 17 Utah: 65,000

# 18 Minnesota: 60,000

# 19 Maryland: 56,000

# 20 Pennsylvania: 49,000

# 21 Kansas: 47,000

= 22 Tennessee: 46,000

= 22 Oklahoma: 46,000

# 24 Indiana: 45,000

# 25 Wisconsin: 41,000

Second, on a relate note, Sheriff Joe says he won't run for governor.

[twa]

First, apologies if I missed this being posted earlier, just thought it informative.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm-people-estimated-number-illegal-immigrants

Always nice to see numbers and how they arrive at them

DEFINITION: Estimated number of Illegal Immigrants. Latest available data - 2000 Census. Eight other States --Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming --each had fewer than 2,500 :look:estimated unauthorized residents in 1990 and 2000. The US Citizenship ad Immigration Services also highlights that the illegal immigrant population in America grows by approximatley a half a million each year. Taken into account, the current illegal immigrant population is between 9 and 11 million people.

[Jumbo]

Always nice to see numbers and how they arrive at them

DEFINITION: Estimated number of Illegal Immigrants. Latest available data - 2000 Census. Eight other States --Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming --each had fewer than 2,500 :look:estimated unauthorized residents in 1990 and 2000. The US Citizenship ad Immigration Services also highlights that the illegal immigrant population in America grows by approximatley a half a million each year. Taken into account, the current illegal immigrant population is between 9 and 11 million people.

Yeah, it's from 2000, and that's still a primary source of official data actually used in discussion in the AZ legislature during this process (per CSPAN). It would be interesting to see the new census data once processed and compare. I meant to edit in that bottom piece you quoted from the site page when I pasted and not the whole list/page and save myself having to scold myself for pasting in too much text per the rules but messed it up.

BTW, most of my personal experience with Mexican (to be specific) immigrants, legal and illegal, comes from living in southern Oregon close to a decade, and longer now here in WA state. I tend to like them, legal or illegal, compared to most male Texans of any stripe. :pfft:

[NavyDave]

Catch and release...what about the border?

Put the National Guard on the Border and after the military is reduced in Iraq letting them ethnically cleanse themselves pass a law so putting the military on the border is considered a National security matter and the ACLU won't sue on behave of illegals having their "Right" to sneak into the USA being violated..

So are Blacks in DC who agree that illegals should be rounded up and deported, Racists or expecting the Federal illegal alien laws to be enforced??

[twa]

BTW, most of my personal experience with Mexican (to be specific) immigrants, legal and illegal, comes from living in southern Oregon close to a decade, and longer now here in WA state. I tend to like them, legal or illegal, compared to most male Texans of any stripe. :pfft:

Damn... And here I thought half of us WERE Mexicans:pfft:

I do find more in common with them than most.:evilg:

[Larry]

Damn... And here I thought half of us WERE Mexicans:pfft:

The joke I heard in Oklahoma was that a "true Texan" was a Mexican who ran out of gas.