the arizona law

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 6:41 PM GMT
    may be found here:

    the items in question:

    section B:
    FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
    OF THIS STATE OR 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. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

    section E:
    A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.






  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    May 19, 2010 9:08 PM GMT
    I don't give a shit, this new law is still too draconian and it even looks unconstitutional fro reading its language. Furthermore, Arizona has no constitutional authority to adopt this type of law because immigration issues rest solely with the US Government, like it or lump it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 9:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIncorrect.

    Correct version here:

    http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF


    Section B now reads as follows:

    B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest 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 in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and 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 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. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states if the person rovides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

    1. A valid arizona driver license.
    2. A valid arizona nonoperating identification license.
    3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
    4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the united states before issuance, any valid united states federal, state or local government issued identification

    And section E:

    E. In the implementation of this section, an alien's immigration status may be determined by:

    1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.

    2. The united states immigration and customs enforcement or the united states customs and border protection pursuant to 8 united states code section 1373(c).





    Yes, the Republicans had to change it to make the language less blantantly racist and unconstitutional.
    Even the Repubs recognized that they were way out of line.
    Unfortunately for the Republican party, the long term damage with latino voters has already been done and they can't correct that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 9:35 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    Unfortunately for the Republican party, the long term damage with latino voters has already been done and they can't correct that.


    it's a good thing for the GOP that illegals can't vote. yet. icon_twisted.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    May 19, 2010 9:36 PM GMT
    Contrary to what SouthBeach thinks about my opinion, I do strongly support US Immigration laws. I just don't think any state has any constitutional authority regarding federal immigration laws, This is strictly a federal issue and responsibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2010 9:59 PM GMT
    Why don't we adopt an immigration law that Mexican President Calderon would surely support: His own country's law!http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2010 10:11 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidContrary to what SouthBeach thinks about my opinion, I do strongly support US Immigration laws. I just don't think any state has any constitutional authority regarding federal immigration laws, This is strictly a federal issue and responsibility.

    He probably also thinks Arizona can mint its own currency, and declare war on Mexico. Those are powers under the US Constitution, too, except exclusive to the Federal government and denied to the individual States.

    Hence these diversionary arguments I see screaming to "Read the Law!" (SB's latest one is delivered by a sock puppet frog in another thread) are irrelevant. WHAT the law says doesn't matter, if the law has no authority to say anything.

    In law it's called a moot point. Arguing the words is a waste of time if the state has no authority to enact any words about immigration in the first place.

    Same as if neighboring New Mexico's legislature passed a law ordering Arizona to obey it on some issue. Arizona wouldn't bother arguing the words, would it? It'd just say your law has no authority here, no matter what the words say, which we're not going to waste time reading.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2010 10:31 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Red_Vespa saidWHAT the law says doesn't matter, if the law has no authority to say anything.

    But how would you know that, if you didn't read the law?

    [SIGH] Because I've read the US Constitution, which makes this law moot. Having no authority under the Constitution to write ANY law on matters of illegal immigration, how would reading Arizona's law change things?

    I seem to be in some kind of endless loop here, and I do mean loop. Keep reading what I & roadbikeRob wrote, and it might eventually sink in.

    Oh, BTW, I have read the law, said so in some earlier post, out of curiosity. Didn't change anything, might as well been reading instructions on how to plant corn for all its relevance to the issue of Constitutionality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2010 10:40 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    Unfortunately for the Republican party, the long term damage with latino voters has already been done and they can't correct that.


    48 percent of Latinos in Arizona expressed support for the law...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2010 10:41 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Red_Vespa said

    [SIGH] Because I've read the US Constitution, which makes this law moot. Having no authority under the Constitution to write ANY law on matters of illegal immigration, how would reading Arizona's law change things?


    But if you didn't read the law, then you have no awareness of the fact that it does NOT write / forge / craft / create any law on matters of illegal immigration.

    But since you absolutely refuse to read the law (which I have no idea why - it's not going to bite you), you remain ignorant and prove your ignorance evertime you write about the law.

    I did read the law, as my amended post above says (these things are crossing), and as I said in another thread you contributed to. The Arizona law deals with enforcing Federal immigration laws. It has no authority to do that. No more than a US Marshal can issue an Arizona traffic ticket to a speeder.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    May 24, 2010 10:53 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    southbeach1500 said
    Red_Vespa said

    [SIGH] Because I've read the US Constitution, which makes this law moot. Having no authority under the Constitution to write ANY law on matters of illegal immigration, how would reading Arizona's law change things?


    But if you didn't read the law, then you have no awareness of the fact that it does NOT write / forge / craft / create any law on matters of illegal immigration.

    But since you absolutely refuse to read the law (which I have no idea why - it's not going to bite you), you remain ignorant and prove your ignorance evertime you write about the law.

    I did read the law, as my amended post above says (these things are crossing), and as I said in another thread you contributed to. The Arizona law deals with enforcing Federal immigration laws. It has no authority to do that. No more than a US Marshall can issue an Arizona traffic ticket to a speeder.


    It's amazing how inconsistent and hypocritical the republican mind is... they call the blatantly unconstitutional Arizona law legitimate, and the obviously perfectly constitutional Healthcare law illegitimate.

    Apparently, to a republican...

    "unconstitutional" = any law that doesn't fit their ignorant philosophy
    "constitutional" = anything that does, regardless of how bigoted and unconscionable

    Just like...
    "activist judge" = any judge who rules in a way they don't like
    "fair judge" = any judge who rules in their favor, even if it blatantly oversteps the bounds of the judicial branch

    At least disasters like the Arizona law and the massive oil spill are serving to make the GOP look more and more ridiculous by the day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2010 12:06 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    southbeach1500 said
    Red_Vespa said

    [SIGH] Because I've read the US Constitution, which makes this law moot. Having no authority under the Constitution to write ANY law on matters of illegal immigration, how would reading Arizona's law change things?


    But if you didn't read the law, then you have no awareness of the fact that it does NOT write / forge / craft / create any law on matters of illegal immigration.

    But since you absolutely refuse to read the law (which I have no idea why - it's not going to bite you), you remain ignorant and prove your ignorance evertime you write about the law.

    I did read the law, as my amended post above says (these things are crossing), and as I said in another thread you contributed to. The Arizona law deals with enforcing Federal immigration laws. It has no authority to do that. No more than a US Marshal can issue an Arizona traffic ticket to a speeder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2010 12:19 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidState and local law enforcement routinely enforce federal laws. Where have you been?

    Here's just one example:

    Federal law 18 USC Section 922 generally prohibits anyone under 18 from possessing a handgun.

    I have been reading the law. 922 clearly states that this is dealing with matters pertaining to interstate trade, clearly a Federal responsibility.

    921 defines interstate: The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. [my emphasis] The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

    927 states: No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

    Bottom line: enforcing US illegal immigration laws by the States MIGHT be permissible if authorized by the Federal government. Otherwise Congress "occupies the field" and no State law applies. Prior court precedent reinforces the Constitutional interpretation that Congress occupies the field of immigration enforcement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2010 12:21 AM GMT
    For anyone interested, here is SB 1070 annotated by a Law Professor at the University of Arizona. The annotations discuss some of the more contentious portions of the law.


    http://www.azdatapages.com/sb1070.html#document/p1/a7
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2010 12:55 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidState and local law enforcement routinely enforce federal laws. Where have you been?
    This is an obvious misdirection on your part. Local law enforcement doesn't preempt or supersede Federal Law; they're required to enforce whatever law there is.

    The Constitutional criticism isn't about who gets to ENFORCE it, it's who gets to WRITE it.

    As you've mentioned before, the law already exists.

    What's failing is the Federal government's response to their own law. Why do you suppose there's no funding for enforcement of this law? Give you a hint: it starts with an R.

    Immigration is a Federal issue, and needs the resources and power of the US Government to enforce. New York has to help pay, along with Wisconsin and Oregon. Arizona needs our help!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2010 3:09 AM GMT
    sxydrkhair saidDid a little research and found that California has the same law (Penal Code 834b) on their books and are complaining about Arizona new immigration law. Wow, Looks like Los Angeles and San Francisco Mayors have violated California Law and should be investigated by the Attorney General of California.
    If you research other issues as poorly as you did this one it might explain your prejudice and willingness to grasp any little bit of justification for it.

    Hysteria only makes people miss obvious flaws in their reasoning ..

    The law known as proposition 187 was voided by the courts ..
    http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/cas-anti-immigrant-proposition-187-voided-ending-states-five-year-battle-aclu-righ

    http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/29/news/mn-60700

    Not only that, but it set the Republicans (who mostly voted for it) back in terms of electability with Arnold being the first Republican (very moderate) to be elected since 1994.

    Granted that in times of economic stress people get hysterical enough to blame minority groups for the "evils" they suffer .. who know maybe they could succeed on a second attempt since so many people are panicking and irrational right now.