Arizona's New Immigration Law

[MonteQuest]

I am surprised this topic isn't here. As many of you know, I live in Arizona. The debate over this new law is hot, mostly due to ignorance of the law itself. Even Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have criticized it, and then later admitting to having not even read it!

Here's the amended text of the law. Read it, please.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/rep ... 10_hb2162/

The original version is what sparked all the controversy, and the media still isn't reporting the law accurately. It'a almost as bad as the Death Panels nonsense with the health care bill.

Here's a synopsis:

For any lawful contact in AZ such as a traffic stop, ordinance violation, etc, or a detention based upon reasonable suspicion, or an arrest based upon probable cause, made by a law enforcement official for the enforcement of any other law, if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, the officer will contact ICE or the Border patrol to determine their legal status. They can only be detained, at the scene of the contact, while ICE verifies their status. Minutes, not hours. Case law Terry v. Ohio. United States v. Place.

In other words, you must break some AZ law or be suspected of breaking some AZ law, and then display reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally, before they can ask about your legal status in the US.

However, if you produce an AZ DL, or one issued from any state that requires proof of citizenship to acquire, ( only three states don't) it allows the officer to presume you aren't here illegally. You are free to go. ICE won't be contacted. Of course, you could show your passport or birth certificate as well.

You don't have to have your birth certificate or passport. Only legal aliens, under Federal law must carry a travel visa, work visa, green card, or stamped passport at all times.

What is reasonable suspicion?

No ID or record of one in the system.

No SSN.

Can't speak English. But not in, and of, itself.

Outstanding warrant from ICE.

Running to avoid apprehension.

Freely admitting you are here illegally.

The sound of voices coming from your trunk.

They may not consider race, color, or national origin as reasonable suspicion.

They can't pull you over for "driving while brown" and ask for "papers".

Part of this law makes it a crime to racially profile. In fact, it is the first law to ever make racial profiling a crime.

Upon verification from ICE that you are indeed an illegal, you can be arrested and fined for violating Federal law in Arizona and trespassing in Arizona. After any jail sentence, they turn you over to the Feds for Deportation.

Does it violate the Supremacy Clause? Maybe. Maybe not.

Pretty straight forward. Nothing draconian.

So what's the beef?

Please cite the section of the law you have issue with before your rant.

[deMolay]

Why is wrong to control your own border. On the news it stated that over 1 million pounds of drugs had been siezed. That Tuczon is the kidnap capital of the USA and #2 in the world. And that the illegal immigrants are treated inhumanely by the coyotes. Why would not any person want to put an end to this kind of thing. It must be hell for anyone living near the border. I think it has a lot to do with Cantrell collapsing.

[ColossalContrarian]

Here's the problem IMO from what you posted MonteQuest. LEO's ability to violate a citizens 4th amendment is too broad.

"In other words, you must break some AZ law or be suspected of breaking some AZ law, and then display reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally, before they can ask for valid ID.

Valid ID is an AZ DL or one issued from any state that requires proof of citizenship to acquire ( only three states don't) allows the officer to presume you aren't here illegally. You are free to go."

1. If you break a law or are suspected of breaking the law LEO will ask for identification anyway. This is nothing new so why is there a law for it?

2. If someone doesn't present an ID it is assumed they're illegal, if they do they're free to go? Wrong, if you commit a crime, regardless of whether you have ID or not, you are still guilty and NOT free to go. If you didn't commit a crime and show ID you are free to go. If you didn't commit a crime and you can't produce ID then you are still guilty of a crime, that crime being related to immigration or being in the US illegally. What worries me is that LEO will use probable cause as being Hispanic because someone says "a Hispanic person did this crime" it automatically makes every person of Hispanic descent a suspect. That is the problem and it gives LEO free reign to violate any who's Hispanic looking's 4th Amendment, the funny thing is many white people look Hispanic sometimes and many white people with tans look Hispanic. You need more than the color of a person’s skin to associate them with a crime or have any reasonable type of probable cause. It's a lot like saying "a man violated me" and LEO having free reign to pull over, question, and ask for ID for any man. LEO's ability to violate the 4th amendment is too broad. What Arizona is doing is unconsitutional.

[MonteQuest]

"In other words, you must break some AZ law or be suspected of breaking some AZ law, and then display reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally, before they can ask for valid ID. Valid ID is an AZ DL or one issued from any state that requires proof of citizenship to acquire ( only three states don't) allows the officer to presume you aren't here illegally. You are free to go."

1. If you break a law or are suspected of breaking the law LEO will ask for identification anyway. This is nothing new so why is there a law for it?

Sorry, to be more clear, I edited it to read. "In other words, you must break some AZ law or be suspected of breaking some AZ law, and then display reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally, before they can ask about your legal status in the US." They already have your ID. But is it a valid ID from AZ or one that required proof of citizen to acquire? If so, then they will never ask about your legal status, as having one of those forms of ID presumes you are not here illegally.

If someone doesn't present an ID it is assumed they're illegal, if they do they're free to go?

No, if someone produces one of the 4 acceptable ID's, it is presumed that they are not here illegally. And they are free to go with regard to the issue of their legal status in the US. They might be detained or arrested for some other crime or violation of AZ law.

What worries me is that LEO will use probable cause as being Hispanic because someone says "a Hispanic person did this crime" it automatically makes every person of Hispanic descent a suspect.

You mean "LEO will use "reasonable suspicion" of being hispanic to ask about their legal status in the US.

Being or looking Hispanic is not reasonable suspicion to ask about legal status.

They may not consider race, color, or national origin as reasonable suspicion.

They can't pull you over for "driving while brown" and ask for "papers".

Part of this law makes it a crime to racially profile. In fact, it is the first law to ever make racial profiling a crime.

What Arizona is doing is unconsitutional.

Please cite the exact section of the law you think is unconstitutional and provide case law to support it, if you have it, ok?

[Serial_Worrier]

States usurping a federal role is not unconstitutional. The Constitution defines which rights of the individual the state can't violate. But there is no such thing as violating the Federal government's "rights". It's all bogus. It's the liberals trying to distract us again.

[ColossalContrarian]

Please cite the exact section of the law you think is unconstitutional and provide case law to support it, if you have it, ok?

No thanks! I've read the Bill of Rights and have my own opinion. This is what we interpret differently. -> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I said the law is too broad and that's what I believe. You naively believe cops won't racially profile, that's nice, drink some more Kool-Aid.

You also fail to realize how this law will hurt LEO too. It wrongly places Arizona's illegal immigration problem directly on Law Enforcement when the problem is primarily due to rich bastards trying to save a buck.

[ColossalContrarian]

States usurping a federal role is not unconstitutional. The Constitution defines which rights of the individual the state can't violate. But there is no such thing as violating the Federal government's "rights". It's all bogus. It's the liberals trying to distract us again.

Someone having brown skin does not mean they have to be a liberal, WTF is wrong with you?

[Serial_Worrier]

Please cite the exact section of the law you think is unconstitutional and provide case law to support it, if you have it, ok?

No thanks! I've read the Bill of Rights and have my own opinion. This is what we interpret differently. -> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I said the law is too broad and that's what I believe. You naively believe cops won't racially profile, that's nice, drink some more Kool-Aid.

You also fail to realize how this law will hurt LEO too. It wrongly places Arizona's illegal immigration problem directly on Law Enforcement when the problem is primarily due to rich bastards trying to save a buck.

Asking for papers is not a "search and seizure". You're required to show ID for all kinds of things now, what's so different here except a fav Dem constituency is up in arms?

[MonteQuest]

Please cite the exact section of the law you think is unconstitutional and provide case law to support it, if you have it, ok?

No thanks! I've read the Bill of Rights and have my own opinion. This is what we interpret differently. -> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I am not relying on my opinion, but that of the US Supreme Court. Case law Terry v. Ohio. United States v. Place

I said the law is too broad and that's what I believe.

Ok. But what part is too broad? Just trying to understand your position.

[MonteQuest]

You naively believe cops won't racially profile, that's nice, drink some more Kool-Aid.

If they do racially profile, then they would have to target hispanic traffic offenders/criminals and ignore non-hispanics. Or when they stop someone for a crime, they ignore the non-hispanics who have no ID, have warrants from ICE, and who run, while focusing on questioning the hispanics for legal status.

They would also have to face 4th amendment violation charges, face criminal prosecution for violating the new AZ state law against racial profiling, and face lawsuits from Az citizens under the new law for "adopting a policy" that fails to enforce the law to it's fullest extent.

And even if they do racially profile after all that, if the text of the law can't be shown to promote it in court, it stands. Fear of abuse isn't a legal argument against a law.

You also fail to realize how this law will hurt LEO too.

No, I don't. I am a former Federal LE officer myself.

[Sixstrings]

What this shows is that there's a disconnect between a federal government that's sold us out to globalism, and a southwestern state government who evidently didn't get the memo that there is no United States anymore, only global capital which moves freely.

Fundamentally, immigration is not within the state's jurisdiction. If Arizona can no longer tolerate the rest of the union's hell-bent stance on open borders, then Arizona should secede.

[MonteQuest]

Fundamentally, immigration is not within the state's jurisdiction.

They aren't claiming it is.

Many states, including Arizona, aren't claiming to exercise an "inherent" state authority on immigration policy. Instead, they're claiming to be upholding existing federal law.

Arizona's immigration law may survive

[ColossalContrarian]

.

You also fail to realize how this law will hurt LEO too.

No, I don't. I am a former Federal LE officer myself.

As a citizen I would prefer you put your efforts elsewhere -try bankers instead of immigrants.

LEO should be fighting better battles. It's a shame.

[MonteQuest]

LEO should be fighting better battles. It's a shame.

So, ICE and Border Patrol officers should quit?

[eastbay]

Enforcing the law will hurt cops? First time I've heard that suggestion.

[Sixstrings]

Fundamentally, immigration is not within the state's jurisdiction.

They aren't claiming it is.

Well, that will be decided in federal court. But I sympathize, by the way. Immigration, both illegal and legal, does nothing but put Americans out of work (along with outsourcing via globalism, insourcing via immigration is just as destructive). Now if an immigrant comes here on an investor visa, and he's literally got a big chunk of money to start a new business with then that's a good thing. But when immigrants come over penniless with the intent of just sending their wages back home to Mexico, or Microsoft hires an H1B visa Indian just because he's cheaper than an American, then that's bad for the economy (unless you're the business owner profiting off cheap labor, then for you it's good).

Bottom line, unemployment is just way too high right now -- immigration needs to be stopped cold, both legal and illegal. UNLESS they're coming over with enough money to start a business. Otherwise, immigrants just take Americans' jobs and / or depress wages for everyone. Keep in mind, if we had a labor shortage like in decades past then of course immigration would make sense. It's just craziness given our current levels of unemployment.

Getting back to Arizona.. you guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place. TPTB have no intention of slowing down illegal immigration from Mexico. At best, you guys will force them to grant amnesty or start up a guest worker program.

As for the fairness of the law, as anti-immigration as I am, I actually don't like the idea of someone getting extra scrutiny just because he looks hispanic. Just imagine if you were a latino US citizen -- think about how insulted you would feel if some cop asked for proof of your citizenship. Proof of being licensed to drive is one thing, but having to show papers because your skin is dark is something else.

The other issue here is that it really is bad for law enforcement. The local cops are supposed to be handling robberies, violent crimes, petty theft / fraud and the like. Now how are you going to investigate crimes if a big portion of your population is terrified to talk to you? On the other hand, I can understand you guys must be really nervous about the drug war violence spilling over from Mexico to the US. So I can see why this law was passed, what else can you do when the federal government wants the open border to continue? Democrats want the votes, and fat cat Republicans want the cheap Mexican labor -- that's why nothing will ever get done about this.

[Fiddlerdave]

This example of Arizona trying something to fix a problem that shouldn't exist is silly and expensive.

The police will ask for proof of citizenship or legal immigration or work status, and are supposed to take a DL, or other paperwork as "proof" and then let them go.

Of our current 11 million illegals, the majority are working for employers who, by law, should already have done exactly that!

I think a better law would be to require the police to find the EMPLOYER of any illegals they find in these day to day operations, and then arrest the AMERICAN EMPLOYERS of the illegals.

This would be vastly more effective, and produce almost immediate results, as companies would take a much more heightened interest in the quality or existence of prospective employee paperwork. I would have thought that already, someone willing to be working for half of minimum wage, or not wanting overtime pay, or being disinterested in safety, would have clued these employers that perhaps their employees were not legal workers, but watching a few of their golf buddies do perp walks for hiring illegals would bring about illegal immigration reduction mighty quick when the illegals went back home jobless.

As for the employers, like meat-packing plants, who regularly hire coyotes and buses to bring the illegals from Mexico directly to work, why these people, managers and owners alike, are NOT behind bars is quite puzzling. (NOT!)

[deMolay]

Ask yourself what was the initial reason for the creation of first city states and then National governments. Nations were brought into existance to protect its citizens as job number one. Washington by law claims that as their responsibility. When they fail to take up their responsibility it then falls to the state to protect its citizens. Washington's failure to fulfill its obligation first to it's legal citizens is promoting anarchy. Should the state of Arizona wait until the legal citizens arm themselves and start defending themselves openly? That could be the end result.

[Ayoob]

Frankly, this is the kinder and gentler way to deal with illegal immigration. Prison, deportation, and discrimination is by far the kinder and gentler way when compared with the Trail of Tears that will surely precede the dieoff.

I would MUCH prefer to be marched off into the desert with a skin full of water over being shot in the back of the head outside of a food stamp office. Can you imagine the white hot rage when native Americans (I'm not talking about the stone age savages who never smelted iron or harvested the benefits of the wheel and axle) will feel when their tax dollars are spent feeding those who do not belong here, while their own children cry for milk?

Everyone will be happier with simply separating rather than the actual slaughter of tens of millions of people.

The dieoff is coming. It IS coming. Human population is going to decrease due to an inability to provide food. This is not a test, this is the real thing. When it comes, and it will, how do you think illegal aliens will be treated? Will they simply be the new niggers, subjected to horrible working conditions without legal protection... or will they be ground to dust by the wheels of indifference? And how will the detritus of that situation react?

It's MUCH BETTER and MUCH KINDER to simply separate and fend for ourselves rather than anything else. I'm right, it's just that the pressure hasn't built enough yet. Wait and see. It is better to build the wall and man it with horrible weapons of war than it is to wait for armed citizens to defend their territory mano e mano.

I believe the wastelands of Southern California will be given to Mexico en bloc. No great loss, if you ask me. The great State of California will be split into Northern and Southern California, and the lines will be redrawn to reflect demographic destiny. The water will be cut off, and that will change things again.

Mexico is not a horrible place. It's perfectly fine. Mexicans should be more than happy in Mexico.

Bless their hearts.

But not here. They will go home and be happy there.

Consider for a moment plan B. Imagine a lake somewhere in Wisconsin. Imagine three groups of people on the lake, each fishing for their dinner. One group has owned a cabin on the lakefront for three generations, and has fished that lake for a hundred years. They throw the small fish back. Another group, this one Hmong, keeps the small fish to eat because they are hungry. The third group is the illegals. They run five times as many boats as both of the other groups combined, and eat all the fish they catch. Why not? There is no reason to husband their resources, they will simply move on to the next lake when this one runs out of fish.

Who gets shot first? Who gets shot second? Who winds up with the lake in the end? Dieoff determines strategy.

[Fishman]

Oh darn, now Mass. has passed a stringent anti illegal alien bill. Shucks, looks like this might spread, what with 70% of the population agreeing with Arizona.