DOJ won't sue sanctuary cities

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, when the cops set up and catch these criminals, does the ACLU, La Raza, NAACP, and Democratic Party all band together and sue the cops? Accuse them of "Profiling" people who just happen to own a car? Demand the criminals be set free?

Didn't think so...

If a state or municipality enacted a zero-tolerance law to enforce speeding but only in, for example, primarily lower-income black neigbhorhoods, you can be assured that civil rights organizations and minority advocates will be vocal in their complaints.

If a state passed a law requiring its police to strictly enforce all speeding ordinances at all times, I suspect the police would complain that it would interfere with doing anything other than enforcing speeding laws.

About the only thing you wouldn't have in this hypothetical is a lawsuit from the federal government, because there is no preemption issue here. The federal government is not given the authority and duty in the U.S. Constitution to establish a uniform policy wrt to traffic regulation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No difference in factual-ness HUGE difference in perception

Same as we don't call a "rapist" a "willing sexual participant"

They may be factual as far as it goes, but there is a huge difference in how we percieve these things

We don't call "bank robbers" "undocumented withdrawlists"

Strange. You seem to be responding to a different question than the one you were asked. He asked what's the difference between a "foreign invader" and an "illegal immigrant", and you seem to be responding to a question about the difference between "foreign invader" and "undocumented immigrant".

At any rate, you also seem to be using "invade" and "trespass" as synonyms.

And it's utterly wrong to claim that this law is not about immigration. Even most proponents refer to it as an immigration law, or a law about the enforcement of immigration laws (when they ignore that it also creates a state misdemeanor).

 

[pipelineaudio]

Darker skin than mine, for example.

Then they'd have to stop 99% of arizonans

"Skin colour" was shorthand, "looks*" might have been a better choice of words. Or are you saying that the Arizona police idea of what an illegal immigrant** looks like won't include "looking Hispanic"?

What does a hispanic look like?

Even more to the point, are you claiming that Hispanic citizens won't get stopped more frequently than those of more obvious northern European ancestry.

Since the law doesn't allow for stopping someone at all, then yeah, I'd claim that

 

[Neally]

If an illegal immigrant walks past that person isn't obviously an illegal immigrant. So the police could stop everybody and ask for proof of ID, which would be impractical, or they target those they think "look" like illegal immigrants. This would probably mean that they target people who look Hispanic and poor.
I suppose it depends whether you think that exposing up to 30% of your lawful citizens to being stopped by police on the basis of skin colour is a good thing. Even if it was only 5% it would be wrong, but 30% is just insane.

Since the legitimate enforcement of the AZ law would not require any of your above scenarios, they are irrelevant.

But that's not what they're saying. (Really--do you want me to give you some quotes from here in the JREF and from opinion pieces and editorials elsewhere?)

Again I don't know who the "they" are, and if someone did make that claim, they are in the minority. As I said, it's been pointed out to you multiple times that it's all about insufficient enforcement, yet for some reason you keep coming back to the claim that the critics are arguing that there is no enforcement.

 

[jimbob]

Since the legitimate enforcement of the AZ law would not require any of your above scenarios, they are irrelevant.

I thought that the law requires state and local police to determine the status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they are illegal immigrants and to arrest people who are unable to provide documentation proving they are in the country legally.

What would constitute reasonable suspicion?

Either the police will stop people who they think look "dodgy" or they won't. If the former, I'd find it hard to believe that Hispanic citizens won't be targeted. I suppose you could just arrest anyone you think is working below the minimum wage. But what would you base that suspicion on?

ETA: And if this isn't the case why are some Latinos saying it is a mandate for racial profiling?

 

[Neally]

I thought that the law requires state and local police to determine the status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they are illegal immigrants and to arrest people who are unable to provide documentation proving they are in the country legally.

It does.

What would constitute reasonable suspicion?

If the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person might be here illegally, they can attempt to determine their immigration status. Possible reasonable suspicion examples:

* A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. No one has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
* A police officer gets a complaint of noise disturbance at an apartment. He knocks on the door and inquires about the disturbance. Tries to find out who is living there. 10 people give evasive answers as to where they live and have no id.

Either the police will stop people who they think look "dodgy" or they won't. If the former, I'd find it hard to believe that Hispanic citizens won't be targeted. I suppose you could just arrest anyone you think is working below the minimum wage. But what would you base that suspicion on?

Reasonable suspicion has more to do than looking dodgy. See the above.

ETA: And if this isn't the case why are some Latinos saying it is a mandate for racial profiling?

Because they haven't read the bill, thought through reasonable suspicion scenarios, and have simply accepted the "this is racial profiling" meme in the media.

 

[marplots]

Neally is right.

And what constitutes reasonable suspicion is not determined by police officers, it is determined by courts at trial. Whenever you are pulled over for a traffic stop (as an example) the police must demonstrate reasonable suspicion (or reasonable cause) for the stop. If they do not, anything that flows from that is tainted and will be thrown out of court.

If police officers do not follow the standards that emerge in court, they will be arresting a bucket-load of people who will then be released once a judge gets a look at it.

One example of reasonable cause is practiced every day during border enforcement activities. Agents do not have to see a person crossing the line to infer they are entering the country illegally, rather, their behavior and route of travel is considered reasonable suspicion. And this would be true even if they were dressed as Ronald McDonald and spoke with an Australian accent.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again I don't know who the "they" are, and if someone did make that claim, they are in the minority. As I said, it's been pointed out to you multiple times that it's all about insufficient enforcement, yet for some reason you keep coming back to the claim that the critics are arguing that there is no enforcement.

Again, I could spend some time searching the forum to provide you quotes from here, if you wish. Do you want me to provide them? (I'd rather not spend the time, but I know the statement that government is not enforcing immigration laws has been made several times.)

I could more easily find a gazillion such quotes in the news media and in the blogosphere.

Yes, most of the people claiming that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws backpedal quickly when I've pointed out that this is factually not true and claim that what they meant was that they don't do enough enforcement.

When I point out that enforcement of immigration laws by the federal government is at all time record high levels, they say it's still not enough, but don't really care to elaborate what "enough" means.

So what does "insufficient enforcement" mean?

I think, as I've already said, that what they want is a different policy--and not more money spent on more enforcement. They want a policy that targets the casual breaking of the laws by the millions of illegal aliens who commit no other crimes (rather than a policy that focuses on violent criminals, felons and gang-bangers).

These are legitimate differences of opinions that we can discuss and debate. But, it is not a fact that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws. That the federal government doesn't enforce the laws enough (whatever that means) is an opinion. Presenting that opinion disguised as a statement of fact isn't honest argumentation.

In fact, I think the real opinion underneath even these "not enough" or "insufficient" statements is the opinion that the federal government's policy of immigration isn't appropriate. But again, going back to the legal argument, the Constitution gives the authority to establish a uniform national policy on naturalization to the U.S. Congress.

 

[rwguinn]

Again, I could spend some time searching the forum to provide you quotes from here, if you wish. Do you want me to provide them? (I'd rather not spend the time, but I know the statement that government is not enforcing immigration laws has been made several times.)

I could more easily find a gazillion such quotes in the news media and in the blogosphere.

Yes, most of the people claiming that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws backpedal quickly when I've pointed out that this is factually not true and claim that what they meant was that they don't do enough enforcement.

When I point out that enforcement of immigration laws by the federal government is at all time record high levels, they say it's still not enough, but don't really care to elaborate what "enough" means.

So what does "insufficient enforcement" mean?

I think, as I've already said, that what they want is a different policy--and not more money spent on more enforcement. They want a policy that targets the casual breaking of the laws by the millions of illegal aliens who commit no other crimes (rather than a policy that focuses on violent criminals, felons and gang-bangers).

These are legitimate differences of opinions that we can discuss and debate. But, it is not a fact that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws. That the federal government doesn't enforce the laws enough (whatever that means) is an opinion. Presenting that opinion disguised as a statement of fact isn't honest argumentation.

In fact, I think the real opinion underneath even these "not enough" or "insufficient" statements is the opinion that the federal government's policy of immigration isn't appropriate. But again, going back to the legal argument, the Constitution gives the authority to establish a uniform national policy on naturalization to the U.S. Congress.

I notice how you focus on the hyperbole of the "pro-law" individuals (including myself, I admit) while ignoring the hyperbole of the "Anti-law" people.
Such a sharp focus is admirable in some types of photography, and when doing stress analysis of a critical part.
It does prevent you from looking at the whole problem, yet still allows you to gloat over those who, from ignorance or hyperbole, misspoke.
Show us how the Arizona Law "establishes an Immigration Policy" for the State of Arizona at odds with that of the United States of America.

 

[Beerina]

By the way, w.r.t. to the OP issue, IIRC, the cities basically make a declaration not to not enforce so much as stating in legalese they "will do the minimum required" by federal law.

Hence there's nothing to sue over, unless they breach "the minimum" standard, whatever that is.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, w.r.t. to the OP issue, IIRC, the cities basically make a declaration not to not enforce so much as stating in legalese they "will do the minimum required" by federal law.

Hence there's nothing to sue over, unless they breach "the minimum" standard, whatever that is.

Thanks for that info. That's sort of what I suspected, but I really hadn't heard any specifics.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Show us how the Arizona Law "establishes an Immigration Policy" for the State of Arizona at odds with that of the United States of America.

I think that's just what the U.S. plans to do in its lawsuit.

I think the general idea is exactly what I've been saying: the U.S. government has a policy of immigration enforcement that focuses its finite resources on illegal immigrants who commit other significant crimes, whereas the Arizona law is aimed at spending resources on detaining and deporting massive numbers of illegal aliens who have committed no other crime. Arizona's policy would not be compatible with the U.S. government's policy since we are dealing with finite resources for processing and prosecuting these cases. [ETA: If, for instance, the state of Arizona turned over something like 500,000 detained illegals who are not convicted felons, it would hamper the federal government's ability to prosecute illegals who have prior felony convictions.]

The U.S. government attributes the record number of prosecutions (deportations and such) I've been talking about to their increased emphasis on prosecuting illegals who have committed other crimes. This press release, for example, says pretty much exactly that wrt to record enforcement in the Pacific Northwest.

ETA:

ICE attributes the increase in deportations to the recent expansion of the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), which focuses on identifying criminal aliens incarcerated in federal, state and local facilities. Once a criminal alien is identified, ICE lodges an immigration detainer against the individual to ensure they are turned over to ICE for removal upon completion of their criminal sentence.

 

[Neally]

I think the general idea is exactly what I've been saying: the U.S. government has a policy of immigration enforcement that focuses its finite resources on illegal immigrants who commit other significant crimes, whereas the Arizona law is aimed at spending resources on detaining and deporting massive numbers of illegal aliens who have committed no other crime. Arizona's policy would not be compatible with the U.S. government's policy since we are dealing with finite resources for processing and prosecuting these cases.

Thus the reason for the critics of the current policy and reason for the AZ law -- the Fed is selectively enforcing the law, and they aren't doing enough. Citizens are fed up with providing public services to illegals. In addition, the sanctuary city has created a loophole allowing illegals to continue criminal activity without deportation:

* In July 2008, a young woman was robbed and violently injured in San Francisco's wealthy Pacific Heights neighborhood by an illegal immigrant named Alexander Izaguirre. Before the incident, Izaguirre had pleaded guilty to selling cocaine in the city's Tenderloin neighborhood and was involved in previous purse-snatching crimes, but avoided jail due to his enrollment in a program called Back on Track, which is run by District Attorney Kamala Harris and provided training for jobs that Izaguirre could not legally hold.

* On July 31, 2008, 14-year-old Ivan Miranda was murdered and nearly decapitated in a sword attack in San Francisco's Excelsior neighborhood. Authorities arrested Rony Aguilera, known as "Guerrillero," in the attack and believe Aguilera is an illegal immigrant from Honduras. Aguilera had been arrested in 2007 in an assault case, but was never reported to federal immigration officials due to San Francisco's sanctuary policy.

* In October 2008, a drunken driver illegal immigrant, Salvador Vivas-Diaz, crashed his car against the police car of Phoenix, Arizona policeman Shane Figueroa which later resulted in Figueroa's death. Vivas-Diaz had four arrest warrants, a suspended driver’s license, had been charged with forgery and failure to return to court but he was never reported to federal immigration authorities due to Phoenix's former sanctuary city policy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thus the reason for the critics of the current policy and reason for the AZ law -- the Fed is selectively enforcing the law, and they aren't doing enough.

Given that resources for enforcement are limited, no matter what policy you have in place, you could offer the same criticism. The point is that focusing on the prosecution of illegal aliens who don't commit other crimes would come at the cost of going after those who commit crimes. It's a trade off. In the real world, you can't catch everyone who enters the country illegally. So the policy reflects a decision on where to place the emphasis.

(FWIW, even though the fed attributes its record numbers to the focus on going after convicts, the number of deportations of illegals who don't commit other crimes is substantially higher than that of those who commit crimes. I think they're saying the biggest change in recent years comes from that emphasis. I would argue that even if the numbers were overall lower--and they're not--deporting more violent criminals is a better use of limited enforcement resources. In fact, since mostly what they're doing is checking the status of people already in prison, it's a pretty good bang for the buck.)

At any rate, what you say here makes it plain that the Arizona law is an intention to establish a policy that differs from that of the federal government. The Constitution tells us that it is the federal government's responsibility (and authority) to establish a uniform national policy.

As I've been saying, reasonable minds can disagree on what is the best policy, but if the federal government has a policy and a state comes up with a different policy, it's clear which one trumps in this context.

Citizens are fed up with providing public services to illegals.

And this argument isn't very rational. Anyone participating in our economy does indeed pay taxes into the system. (Poor people actually pay a disproportionately higher part of their income in taxes since they have no savings or investments but pay sales taxes and other taxes on pretty much all they earn, even if they're avoiding income taxes. FWIW, even low income legals and citizens pay a lot of taxes even when they don't have to pay any income taxes.)

Actually, if anything, it's a good argument for comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes the status of many illegal workers. They would then pay even more taxes (and doubtless earn more money) when things are done above board.

(Not to open another can of worms, but this is also a good reason for including illegals--or for legalizing them so they can be included--in the new health insurance reforms. Having them pay in something is better than having them pay in nothing. Plus it's the compassionate and humanitarian thing to do; plus it's economically beneficial to have healthy workers.)

 

[Neally]

Given that resources for enforcement are limited, no matter what policy you have in place, you could offer the same criticism. The point is that focusing on the prosecution of illegal aliens who don't commit other crimes would come at the cost of going after those who commit crimes. It's a trade off. In the real world, you can't catch everyone who enters the country illegally. So the policy reflects a decision on where to place the emphasis.

It's not an either/or choice though. Greater boarder security and more enforcement can be achieved by putting more resources into it. The administration is choosing not to.

At any rate, what you say here makes it plain that the Arizona law is an intention to establish a policy that differs from that of the federal government. The Constitution tells us that it is the federal government's responsibility (and authority) to establish a uniform national policy.

Bit of a stretch to claim that the AZ law creates federal policy by way of assisting the federal government by turning over people who are breaking federal laws to them, but we will see what the court says.

And this argument isn't very rational. Anyone participating in our economy does indeed pay taxes into the system.

Some argue there is a net gain, but there is plenty of evidence supporting a net loss due to illegals.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not an either/or choice though.

Are you saying resources for enforcement are infinite? Or do you suppose there are federal employees drawing salaries and not doing anything?

Greater boarder [sic] security and more enforcement can be achieved by putting more resources into it. The administration is choosing not to.

So you think we should raise taxes or do more deficit spending? If you don't do either of these, then it is in fact a trade off in choosing where to spend those resources.

[ETA: And once again, I don't care how much money you allocate to enforcement, you will not catch and deport 100% of illegal aliens, so how much is "enough"? I don't think it's really a question of quantity--even of funding--but a disagreement on policy determining how finite resources are spent.]

Bit of a stretch to claim that the AZ law creates federal policy by way of assisting the federal government by turning over people who are breaking federal laws to them, but we will see what the court says.

Yes, it would be a bit of a stretch to say that. But that's not what I said. Arizona law establishes a policy in Arizona (not a federal policy!) that conflicts with and undermines federal policy, a policy that is meant to be uniform nationwide.

By the way, state police already can (prior to Arizona SB 1070) turn over people who are breaking federal laws. That's not what this law introduces. Don't pretend that the federal government doesn't work with state and even local police to enforce immigration laws. Don't pretend that this law is necessary to establish that sort of cooperation.

 

[Neally]

Are you saying resources for enforcement are infinite? Or do you suppose there are federal employees drawing salaries and not doing anything?So you think we should raise taxes or do more deficit spending? If you don't do either of these, then it is in fact a trade off in choosing where to spend those resources.

Once again you are presenting either/or choices that don't necessarily exist. How about redeploy funds/resources from elsewhere? The present and previous administration simply did not want to address the issue.

Yes, it would be a bit of a stretch to say that. But that's not what I said. Arizona law establishes a policy in Arizona (not a federal policy!) that conflicts with and undermines federal policy, a policy that is meant to be uniform nationwide.

Once again then, how do you think the AZ law conflicts with and undermines federal policy? You have been asked this several times now but you keep avoiding answering by saying that's what the lawsuit is about or that's what the government will try to prove.

Don't pretend that the federal government doesn't work with state and even local police to enforce immigration laws. Don't pretend that this law is necessary to establish that sort of cooperation.

Just the opposite. One of the big complaints that you have acknowledged is that the AZ will actually increase the cooperation by way of potentially channeling many more illegals to federal authorities. Something that they don't want to happen, probably more for political reasons than economic.

 

[MikeMangum]

ETA: And if this isn't the case why are some Latinos saying it is a mandate for racial profiling?

Because that sort of accusation is often effective. There is no more damaging accusation to make against someone in our current society than to accuse them of racism, unless it is raping a pre-pubescent child (raping a child in the middle of puberty is apparently ok, at least according to Whoopi).

That's why, to deflect attention from Jeremiah Wright, Spencer Ackerman said that journalists should pick some random conservatives "and call them racists"

It's almost like the dynamic in the late 50's and early 60's; simply call someone a communist and you win the argument.

 

[marplots]

First this:

Once again then, how do you think the AZ law conflicts with and undermines federal policy?

Then this:

... AZ will actually increase the cooperation by way of potentially channeling many more illegals to federal authorities. Something that they don't want to happen, probably more for political reasons than economic.

Seems like you asked and then answered your own question there. A great convenience for readers.

 

[Neally]

Seems like you asked and then answered your own question there. A great convenience for readers.

Comprehension Fail. Run out of other threads to troll?