Merged AZ Gov Signs Immigration Bill

[JoeTheJuggler]

No one is arguing that legislation for the goal of immediate political expedience doesn't work. If it didn't work it wouldn't happen so often.

This doesn't mean that it is necessarily good law, because it garners approbation (or even bad law if it doesn't.) All JTJ seemed to be saying, to me at any rate, is he would evaluate his elected representatives on the basis of such legislative opportunism.

I see nothing wrong with that. I wish more people would make the effort to be at least that critical. You yourself have espoused similar sentiments regarding laws you didn't agree with. Were you wrong to do so?

Well said.

ETA: My main point was that the motivation and character of the individual legislators who passed the bill are irrelevant to assessing whether or not it's good law. For a sort of opposite example, consider the Civil Rights Act strongly supported by and eventually signed into law by LBJ. I rather think LBJ is a racist, and he passed this law for reasons of political expedience. But, the Civil Rights Act was a very good law.

And scapegoating "foreigners" is a perennial favorite in this sort of politically expedient legislation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For the record, I'm strongly against this law. My reasons are several, but one of them is not that the legislators who passed it are racist. (Even if they are.)

First, there is a legal question about pre-emption of federal authority. The Justice Department was considering filing a suit on that issue. (I haven't heard any news that they have done so.)

Second, I don't see how it can help police. I do see how it could hamper them in doing their jobs (which is NOT enforcement of federal immigration law). If the law doesn't authorize racial profiling, and there is no way to guess whether or not someone is illegal (no ethnicity, no use of language, no criminal or other behavior, etc. that is unique to illegals), then it would seem to require state, county and local police to verify the immigration status of everyone they encounter at every call, every traffic stop, and so on. I don't think it does that--I think it would, in fact, authorize racial/ethnic profiling. (That is, if police aren't required to verify the status of everyone they encounter, how do they decide whose status needs verification?)

Third, even if the law isn't abused by the police (KingMerv's concern, I think), it could be abused by those accused of crimes. The Escobar suit points out that it would make police vulnerable to lawsuits based on racism. (Bear in mind, this cost comes with no benefit to the enforcement of state, county or local laws.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This law doesnt target certain classes of people any more than anti-bank robbery laws do. The law targets criminals

Nope. If this law only targets illegal immigrants, then the police must have some way of magically knowing who is an illegal immigrant (so they can avoid detaining anyone else to check their immigration status). If that were the case (that police have this magic ability), there would be no reason for the law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You would be in the minority.

"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state shows that 56% now approve of the way Brewer is performing her role as governor. Two weeks ago, just 40% offered their approval."


"Arizona Voters Favor Welcoming Immigration Policy, 64% Support New Immigration Law"

And of course just because a position is held by the majority doesn't mean it's right. (Bandwagon fallacy.)

At any rate, my point was in answer to thaiboxerken's question:

Yes, the law is bad by it's [sic] own "merits." But is it not important to know where these laws come from?

From a legal perspective, it's irrelevant whether or not the politicians who supported this law are racist or otherwise have less than virtuous motives for their support. But politically, their motives and character matter a great deal.

 

[Neally]

Second, I don't see how it can help police. I do see how it could hamper them in doing their jobs (which is NOT enforcement of federal immigration law).

The intent was to control the illegal immigration which the federal government has failed to do. Not to necessarily help the local police do their other police related work. It now becomes part of their job to enforce the new law just like any other new law that is passed.

I think it would, in fact, authorize racial/ethnic profiling. (That is, if police aren't required to verify the status of everyone they encounter, how do they decide whose status needs verification?)

As you know, the law prohibits racial profiling. The can and will get training on what constitutes legitimately inquiring about immigration status.

The Escobar suit points out that it would make police vulnerable to lawsuits based on racism.

Which is why they will be extra cautious in the application of the law.

Worst case scenario I see is that it will be tied up in court and be struck down, but at least it's a kick in the pants to get the Feds moving forward to do something.

Best case is that the mere presence of the law causes the illegals to self deport and avoid entering the state.

 

[cienaños]

No it doesn't.

The text of the law and the effect of the law are two different concerns. The text of the law remains constant regardless of time and place, the effect does not.

Constitutional issues can also be analyzed in those two different ways.

Let's replace the text of SB 1070 with the text of the Bible. The text of the bible and the effect of its 'laws' are two different things. The text of the bible's 'laws' remain constant regardless of time and place, their effect do not.

Moral issues can be analyzed in those two different ways.

I am of the opinion that it is only through the analyzing of their effect [in conjunction with the analyzing of the stand alone text] that one can draw more comprehensive conclusions regarding the bible's laws and their morality - as they relate to the human experience.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The text of the bible's 'laws' remain constant regardless of time and place, their effect do not.

Wanna bet?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wanna bet?

Religion forum ----------------> that way, guys.

In re this law, I offer a PoV from Eve Conant. From Arizona.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237196

Last paragraph of the article:

The overwhelming majority of Mexicans who come here are not criminals. Most are just desperate for honest work. But clearly something needs to be done about the traffickers who bring them to the U.S. Last year the U.S. marshal for Arizona, David Gonzales, told me he had some 200 active warrants for Mexicans in and around Phoenix engaged in organized crime. Last week he told me he had 324, and even more in Tucson. So what's the solution? Gonzales favors an approach backed by many other law-enforcement and immigration specialists: the federal government, he says, must step in to make the border more secure and to amend the system so more Mexicans can enter the country legally—without the "help" of criminal cartels.

 

[WildCat]

Religion forum ----------------> that way, guys.

In re this law, I offer a PoV from Eve Conant. From Arizona.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237196

Last paragraph of the article:

"the federal government, he says, must step in to make the border more secure and to amend the system so more Mexicans can enter the country legally—without the "help" of criminal cartels."

We need more legal immigration why, exactly? To help with the crushing labor shortage in this country?

ffs, we have official unemployment at 10%, the real rate (counting those who have given up or are underemployed) is close to 20%.

I have yet to see a rational argument why importing labor with the explicit goal not of solving a labor shortage (which doesn't exist) but of keeping wages and benefits down in certain industries (such as agriculture and construction) is good for the US or the US economy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The intent was to control the illegal immigration which the federal government has failed to do. Not to necessarily help the local police do their other police related work.

I think you're right that that's what the actual intent was (aside from the more important political intentions), but they are definitely selling it as a way to help the police do their jobs. Again, the last sentence in the text of the law is, "This act may be cited as the 'Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act' " and not something like, "Give Law Enforcement Additional Duties to Help the Federal Government Enforce Its Laws."

As you know, the law prohibits racial profiling. The can and will get training on what constitutes legitimately inquiring about immigration status.
Which is why they will be extra cautious in the application of the law.

This is a point I don't understand. If the law doesn't allow racial profiling, then what does it do? Police everywhere already have the authority to ask the Feds to verify a person's immigration status. It seems to me, if the law were to go into effect, it would mean police have to verify the status of everyone they encounter or it will open a huge can of worms (lawsuits) with allegations of bias and racial profiling.

Worst case scenario I see is that it will be tied up in court and be struck down, but at least it's a kick in the pants to get the Feds moving forward to do something.

That sounds like a best case scenario (and what I think is most likely to happen).

I think the worst case scenario is that the courts allow it to be put into effect, police face lots of extra work and/or a great many lawsuits hampering their actual duties in enforcing state and local laws, and the state loses tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars due to widespread boycotts for what is perceived to be a racially-motivated law.

 

[KingMerv00]

I am of the opinion that it is only through the analyzing of their effect [in conjunction with the analyzing of the stand alone text] that one can draw more comprehensive conclusions regarding the bible's laws and their morality - as they relate to the human experience.

I never said otherwise. Thaiboxer was attacking the law without mentioning its effects.

 

[Neally]

Supreme Court upholds part of the bill: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/26/scotus.arizona.law/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Supreme Court upholds part of the bill: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/26/scotus.arizona.law/index.html?hpt=T2

Yeah, did you even bother reading the article?

This isn't even the bill this thread was discussing in the first place. The bill the SCOTUS upheld is one that requires businesses to verify potential employees are legally able to work in the US.

Has nothing to do with the bill that allows law enforcement to request papers from anyone who appears to be an illegal immigrant.

 

[Neally]

It's not the original thread bill but from the article:

This case could serve as a bellwether to how the court will view a larger, more controversial state immigration law from Arizona.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It's not the original thread bill but from the article:

So then you agree that your previous post was misleading in the context of this thread?