Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[dtugg]

What case? The federal lawsuit against the Arizona law hasn't even been filed, and no other court has reviewed this law and found that they aren't in conflict.

US vs Vasquez-Alverez. The issues are identical.

Again, you said you agreed with me that the Arizona law conflicts with the federal law. If you concede that point, then it's an easy matter to support conflict preemption.

I said it could if you interpreted it strictly.

Will you finally concede according to case law, states can enforce federal immigration laws?

 

[dtugg]

In fact the only real difference between US v. Vasquez-Alverez and this future US v. Arizona suit is that in the former the US government argued that the states can enforce federal immigration laws and in the latter they will presumably argue the opposite.

 

[funk de fino]

I am a resident of southern Arizona. I have many friends who happen to reside in the northern border towns of Sonora, Mexico. We are not bigots in any sense of the word here. When was the last time you walked out into your front yard and found a group of people dying from dehydration, driven like cattle by a "Coyote" smuggler who himself, is in bad shape and in need of medical attention, and water? I had this situation happen just over two weeks ago. My neighbor saw the situation and also helped. Do you have proof that I, or my neighbors at other ranch properties denied people water, food, and medical attention because they are just "spics"? If we are racist bigots, we would have just let them die, right?

There are a bunch of honest, good people who cross the border every day, and there are some, who are not good people at all who make their living out of victimizing their fellow citizens with a "safe trip" north, which far too often ends in death.

My point is, the people I know, are not bigots in any sense of the word. Southern Arizona is caught in a crisis of criminal activity that is causing the deaths of some American citizens, and a horrific number of Mexican citizens. The federal government has sat on it's hands for years, and has done next to nothing to enforce the law. Something has to be done, and be it the right policy, or the wrong one, at least Arizona is actually doing something.

Your generalization that Arizona residents or our elected representatives are bigots, is way off the mark.

rbanks1

I was talking about the bigot Brewer and the bigot who wrote it. It would help if you read the thread first instead of goiing off half cocked.

 

[Frank Newgent]

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?

I highlighted the portion of your question that is a false assumption.

And you must have wax in your ears and a blindfold on, because the sponsors/defenders of the Arizona law have answered that question a thousand times already in print, on radio and on TV.

Don't know what you are referring to. Hard to watch US TV in Indonesia.

Can you explain what you mean? If one is not profiling then everybody must have their immigration status verified, no?

 

[Thunder]

I think this law could be ammended to be a little less......ugly.

but i do not like the tone that seems to be coming out of that state. first this law, than the anti-ethnic education law, now a citizenship law for kids.

 

[applecorped]

What are the odds?

 

[BeAChooser]

I think you're unaware that the treatment of aliens is part of Congress' naturalization power. (ETA: See the quote I offered from Galvan v. Press above.)

I debunked that assertion in post #102. Awaiting your response.

my personal political views ... snip ... are also irrelevant.

I suspect they heavily influence your response.

 

[rbanks1]

I was talking about the bigot Brewer and the bigot who wrote it. It would help if you read the thread first instead of goiing off half cocked.

Hello funk de fino,


I assure you that I did indeed read the entire thread first. You accused Governor Brewer and others in leadership positions of being bigots. You used the plural "bigots", implying that an unknown number of Arizona citizens who serve in state government are indeed, bigots. You referred to "the ones", also plural.

The unknown number of people you are talking about are citizens of Arizona, many of whom I know on a professional level as well as a few who I consider to be friends. I also know Jan Brewer from her days serving as Secretary of State, and I can assure you that she is no bigot, nor are any of the other people I know in state government. If you believe that she is, then please post the proof of your claim.

You've made baseless accusations of bigotry against a group of people who I know and respect. If the tables were turned, would you not be offended and feel a need to respond to accusations that you know are not true? If I take you at your word that you were only talking about Brewer and "the bigot who wrote it", you are still making baseless and ugly accusations of racism and bigotry against two people who you know next to nothing about. You don't even know the name or names of the people who wrote the law, yet you know that they are bigots? How can you rationalize or justify that?


rbanks1

 

[BeAChooser]

what's the intent of the law? (Leaving off the political intent of the law! The scapegoating of immigrants and political exploitation of anti-immigrant sentiments.)

THAT is an outright lie. The intent of the law is to stop ILLEGAL immigrants from wrecking Arizona. ILLEGAL. If ANY group is trying to exploit someone here, Joe, it's demogogue democrats who think (probably correctly) that they can get the vote of the Hispanic community by dishonesty portraying this (through their sympathic MSM) as a race issue directed at them. The true exploiters are democrats who think this will allow them to acquire millions of more voters if/when they also manage to put through yet another amnesty for all these illegals. No one is fooled here, Joe. And you won't intimidate us into silence with your false charges of racism against us either.

 

[Neally]

I think this law could be ammended to be a little less......ugly.

How so?

i do not like the tone that seems to be coming out of that state. first this law, than the anti-ethnic education law, now a citizenship law for kids.

Fair enough. So you don't like the federal law which demands that non-citizens carry their paperwork showing they are here legally and allows the requesting of such paperwork on demand, similar to the AZ law. You think that there should be no restrictions on people entering the country?

You don't like the AZ education law that prohibits classes that:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

So you are in favor or classes that advocate the the overthrow of the government, advocate racism, discriminate racially, and promote separatism.

You are in favor of the anchor baby law, which has been rejected by the UK, Canada, France and most other countries, the U.S. being one of the exceptions.

 

[funk de fino]

Hello funk de fino,


I assure you that I did indeed read the entire thread first. You accused Governor Brewer and others in leadership positions of being bigots. You used the plural "bigots", implying that an unknown number of Arizona citizens who serve in state government are indeed, bigots. You referred to "the ones", also plural.

The unknown number of people you are talking about are citizens of Arizona, many of whom I know on a professional level as well as a few who I consider to be friends. I also know Jan Brewer from her days serving as Secretary of State, and I can assure you that she is no bigot, nor are any of the other people I know in state government. If you believe that she is, then please post the proof of your claim.

You've made baseless accusations of bigotry against a group of people who I know and respect. If the tables were turned, would you not be offended and feel a need to respond to accusations that you know are not true? If I take you at your word that you were only talking about Brewer and "the bigot who wrote it", you are still making baseless and ugly accusations of racism and bigotry against two people who you know next to nothing about. You don't even know the name or names of the people who wrote the law, yet you know that they are bigots? How can you rationalize or justify that?


rbanks1

I have seen plenty about the bigot who wrote it and if Brewer was involved in the decision to allow him to write it then she is a bigot. Just because I do not name him here does not mean I know little about him or his past. If you feel that my posts have cast aspersions on others in your fair state, then I apologize as that was not my intention. I will not back down on my opinions on Brewer or the law writer though, they are bigots or at best acting like bigots.

 

[funk de fino]

How so?

Fair enough. So you don't like the federal law which demands that non-citizens carry their paperwork showing they are here legally and allows the requesting of such paperwork on demand, similar to the AZ law. You think that there should be no restrictions on people entering the country?

You don't like the AZ education law that prohibits classes that:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

So you are in favor or classes that advocate the the overthrow of the government, advocate racism, discriminate racially, and promote separatism.

You are in favor of the anchor baby law, which has been rejected by the UK, Canada, France and most other countries, the U.S. being one of the exceptions.

I think, like others, Parky is seeing an undercurrent in all of this AZ stuff. Many others are too.

 

[dtugg]

I think that the only reason the Obama Administration wants to sue the state of Arizona for enforcing laws they refuse to is because they think it will make them look good politically. I hope they are wrong and it backfires in their face. And since polls suggest that most Americans support this law, this seems like a good possibility.

 

[funk de fino]

The bottom line is that the only circumstances where police can inquire as to citizenship according to the law is if the person is suspected of an ordinary state crime and other factors (than that swarthy brown complexion that hispanics often have or the fact that he says his name is Gonzalez) makes the authorities think the person might be an illegal alien. This isn't racial profiling but criminal profiling. What other factors might be considered? Well, for one, not having any identification at all. Not having insurance for the car they are driving. Or being in the desert near the border at the time that person violates other Arizona laws.

What does an illegal alien look like? If stopped by state police would Nick Chapman (caucasian) be asked for papers proving his immigration status?

Why are many of the senior state police against this law?

By the way, do you know what Indonesia does?

You really compared a whole other country to a state?

 

[Frank Newgent]

And you think you can't find the answer to that question on the internet? It's been addressed countless times. Learn to use your browser.

I'm letting you make your argument. Thank you for your cooperation

The bottom line is that the only circumstances where police can inquire as to citizenship according to the law is if the person is suspected of an ordinary state crime and other factors...

A Tucson police officer stops to check out a guy standing on the lawn of a house where one too many cars is up on blocks. The guy is sullen and uncommunicative and can't/won't produce any identification.

What happens next under the Arizona law?

By the way, do you know what Indonesia does?

Shakes a lot.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Here's a question for you states rights types: is this going to backfire on the federal government?

Will states that were neutral or opposed to Arizona's law now side with them out of principal?

 

[Uncayimmy]

A Tucson police officer stops to check out a guy standing on the lawn of a house where one too many cars is up on blocks. The guy is sullen and uncommunicative and can't/won't produce any identification.

What happens next under the Arizona law?

In Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

There's no requirement to produce ID, only to state their full name when being lawfully detained. Your example is a little odd because police usually don't engage in zoning enforcement, but as I understand it in theory they can. In this case, however, the person violating the ordinance would be the owner of the property. So why would the officer be engaging this person? It's really rather an awkward example.

I think what you're driving at is what will constitute probable cause as outlined in this part of the statute:

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.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it what the statute is saying that all government agencies (not just police) have an obligation to determine (where practical) the immigration status of anyone for whom they have reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien. Further, the police can arrest people if they have probable cause to believe they are in the USA illegally.

The $37 question is what's probable cause? That's going to be determined by the courts. You will not be considered an illegal alien if you can produce any of the following:

* A valid Arizona driver license.
* A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
* A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
* Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance.

The question, of course, is still what's probable cause if I can't produce any of the following? I don't think anybody knows at this point. I'll speculate, but it's just speculation.

If the cops had the discretion to arrest you or detain you before this law, they still have that discretion. If you don't have any of the ID above, I think the cops will bring you in and check on your immigration status.

What if they don't have that option and you don't have ID? You are required to give your full name by law, so they can run that through their system. If they find that you've been deported before, I think that goes a long way towards probable cause to arrest you and check your status. The stats I have seen show that many illegals are arrested multiple times, which is why there are new laws elsewhere with stricter penalties for repeat offenses. Aliens are supposed to carry their papers with them, so unless you suddenly became a citizen, you should have ID on you already.

What if they find nothing on you? I think that would depend on what kind of access they have to databases in the state. For example, if they question you about your employer, and that employer doesn't exist and there are no records of you paying taxes or otherwise being employed in the state, is that probable cause to arrest you and check out your immigration status more thoroughly? I'm thinking it would be in that I would expect an illegal alien to be somebody without ID who, along with his employer, doesn't appear in state databases. After all, being here illegally is in many ways a crime of paperwork.

The ACLU side of me argues that there could be legitimate reasons why somebody doesn't have an ID. There could be paperwork issues in the state databases keeping the police from verifying the information given. Problem is, if that's not enough to take the extra steps of investigating further, then what is?

So, I would put the question of probable cause to those who have issues with this statute: What do you think probable cause should be?

 

[pipelineaudio]

I was talking about the bigot Brewer and the bigot who wrote it.

Oh man! Where's the laughing dog?

 

[Frank Newgent]

A Tucson police officer stops to check out a guy standing on the lawn of a house where one too many cars is up on blocks. The guy is sullen and uncommunicative and can't/won't produce any identification.

What happens next under the Arizona law?

In Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

There's no requirement to produce ID, only to state their full name when being lawfully detained. Your example is a little odd because police usually don't engage in zoning enforcement, but as I understand it in theory they can. In this case, however, the person violating the ordinance would be the owner of the property.

An assumption the officer might not necessarily make. As far as my example being odd i believe that the law specifies that the police must determine the immigration status of anybody involved in a municipal code violation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...igration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html

So why would the officer be engaging this person? It's really rather an awkward example.

The officer would be required to engage this person under the law should he, say, be blasting Norteño accordian from some car speakers.

I think what you're driving at is what will constitute probable cause as outlined in this part of the statute:

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.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it what the statute is saying that all government agencies (not just police) have an obligation to determine (where practical) the immigration status of anyone for whom they have reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien. Further, the police can arrest people if they have probable cause to believe they are in the USA illegally.

The $37 question is what's probable cause? That's going to be determined by the courts. You will not be considered an illegal alien if you can produce any of the following:

* A valid Arizona driver license.
* A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
* A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
* Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance.

I (yeah, it's my house [rented] the whole time) must produce some sort of ID? Don't think so.

The question, of course, is still what's probable cause if I can't produce any of the following? I don't think anybody knows at this point. I'll speculate, but it's just speculation.

If the cops had the discretion to arrest you or detain you before this law, they still have that discretion. If you don't have any of the ID above, I think the cops will bring you in and check on your immigration status.

What if they don't have that option and you don't have ID? You are required to give your full name by law, so they can run that through their system. If they find that you've been deported before, I think that goes a long way towards probable cause to arrest you and check your status. The stats I have seen show that many illegals are arrested multiple times, which is why there are new laws elsewhere with stricter penalties for repeat offenses. Aliens are supposed to carry their papers with them, so unless you suddenly became a citizen, you should have ID on you already.

What if they find nothing on you? I think that would depend on what kind of access they have to databases in the state. For example, if they question you about your employer, and that employer doesn't exist and there are no records of you paying taxes or otherwise being employed in the state, is that probable cause to arrest you and check out your immigration status more thoroughly? I'm thinking it would be in that I would expect an illegal alien to be somebody without ID who, along with his employer, doesn't appear in state databases. After all, being here illegally is in many ways a crime of paperwork.

The ACLU side of me argues that there could be legitimate reasons why somebody doesn't have an ID. There could be paperwork issues in the state databases keeping the police from verifying the information given. Problem is, if that's not enough to take the extra steps of investigating further, then what is?

So, I would put the question of probable cause to those who have issues with this statute: What do you think probable cause should be?

You mean like selling Strawberry Quik atole in front of a Goodwill store?

Probable cause must be based on factual evidence and not just on suspicion.

Most probable cause sources can be placed into four categories. These categories are:
•Observation – This is information that the officer obtains through their senses, such as sight, smell or hearing. This category is also used when an officer detects a familiar pattern of criminal activity that contains suspicious behaviors (i.e., flashing headlights, circling around a certain neighborhood.)
•Expertise – These are skills that officers are specially trained in, such as: being able to read gang graffiti and tattoos, detecting tools that are used in burglaries or knowing when certain movements or gestures indicate that a criminal activity is about to occur.
•Information – Statements provided by witnesses and victims, information provided by informants, and announcements made through police bulletins and broadcasts.
•Circumstantial Evidence – This is indirect evidence that implies that a crime has occurred but does not directly prove it.

http://www.probablecause.org/whatisprobablecause.html

The first rule of probable cause that somebody is an illegal alien is you don't talk about (your) probable cause.

 

[Uncayimmy]

An assumption the officer might not necessarily make. As far as my example being odd i believe that the law specifies that the police must determine the immigration status of anybody involved in a municipal code violation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...igration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html

I think you read that wrong. Zoning enforcement is usually done under the umbrella of the police department but not by actual police officers except in unusual circumstances. The article you cite clarifies that zone enforcement agents will not be required to determine immigration status because they are nto police officers. It doesn't say anything at all about the police being required to determing the status of "anybody involved in a municipal code violation" like you claim. The police are not suddenly going to be used for every overgrown lawn or car parked on the grass.

As for the definition of "anybody involved" your premise is still awkward. Standing on a property that is in violation doesn't make a person "involved" in the violation. So, if by some freak chance a cop was involved in such enforcement, why would they deal with that person?

The officer would be required to engage this person under the law should he, say, be blasting Norteño accordian from some car speakers.

Yes, a police officer would have to engage somebody blasting their car stereo too loud. That's a different situation. If you want to switch situations to one that's more clear, that's fine by me.

I (yeah, it's my house [rented] the whole time) must produce some sort of ID? Don't think so.

I've re-read what I wrote and what you wrote, and I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

You mean like selling Strawberry Quik atole in front of a Goodwill store?

Again, no clue what you're trying to say. Sentences are cheap. Use a few more.

The first rule of probable cause that somebody is an illegal alien is you don't talk about (your) probable cause.

Still no clue what you're trying to say.