2 Lawsuits Challenge New Arizona Immigration Law

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

An Arizona police officer and a Latino group filed the first legal challenges of Arizona's sweeping new law cracking down on illegal immigration Thursday.

Fifteen-year Tucson police veteran Martin Escobar argues there's no way for officers to confirm people's immigration status without impeding investigations. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Tucson, alleges the new immigration law violates numerous constitutional rights and could hinder police investigations in Hispanic-prevalent areas.

A Latino Clergy group also sued Thursday in federal court in Phoenix. The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders will seek an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law.

The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona's law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they're convicted.

...

Other Hispanic and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, are also planning lawsuits, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government may challenge the law.

...

At least three Arizona cities — Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson — also are considering lawsuits to block the law.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10505268

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Idiots. These morons have no understanding of this law at all.

God forbid we should actually question people who have NO ID, can't speak English, etc. when they are in normal policing situations...

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona's law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they're convicted.

So they are supposed to convict someone before they can detain them?

"Excuse me, sir. You're being charged with armed robbery. Here is a citation with your court date. Please show up on time. Please note that if you are convicted then you will be detained."

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So they are supposed to convict someone before they can detain them?

"Excuse me, sir. You're being charged with armed robbery. Here is a citation with your court date. Please show up on time. Please note that if you are convicted then you will be detained."

I didn't quite understand that either. Maybe it has something to do with the civil versus criminal aspect.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Idiots. These morons have no understanding of this law at all.

God forbid we should actually question people who have NO ID, can't speak English, etc. when they are in normal policing situations...

so speaking another language = a crime or potential crime? Not having ID outside a vehicle = a crime or potential crime?

Huh, I always thought you were free to speak whatever language you wanted.

[Heracles 417]

It's not a crime but certainly triggers a flag. I highly doubt Brits or Germans are jumping the border.

Considering how close to the unprotected border people live in Mexico (thanks google streetview from Mexico), the entire country needs some tough legislation.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Booyah!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

so speaking another language = a crime or potential crime? Not having ID outside a vehicle = a crime or potential crime?

Huh, I always thought you were free to speak whatever language you wanted.

The law doesn't allow officers to stop random people because they 'look' a certain way or 'talk' a certain way, despite the rhetoric out there.

The law works so in cases where they would NORMALLY be involved in a law enforcement situation, they would be questioned further/detained if the 'shoe fits' so to speak. - You get pulled over by a cop, you have NO ID, you can't communicate, etc. then that officer is going to look into who you are. -- Guess what, a "white" person is just as much checked out if they don't have an ID as well.

OR you pull over a large van, pull of day laborers.. It's pretty well good to assume that those in the back of the van/truck aren't exactly of 'legal' status.

All this law does is allow local enforcement to work in conjunction with federal officials in determining the status of individuals. Also it enforces laws for employers on the books as well.

There no racial profiling ghost law in this bill that makes all Hispanics a target. There's no ghost law in here that tells an officer to stop random people on the street. It's nothing ilke that whatsoever.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The law doesn't allow officers to stop random people because they 'look' a certain way or 'talk' a certain way, despite the rhetoric out there.

The law works so in cases where they would NORMALLY be involved in a law enforcement situation, they would be questioned further/detained if the 'shoe fits' so to speak. - You get pulled over by a cop, you have NO ID, you can't communicate in English, etc. then that officer is going to look into who you are. -- Guess what, a "white" person is just as much checked out if they don't have an ID as well.

OR you pull over a large van, pull of day laborers.. It's pretty well good to assume that those in the back of the van/truck aren't exactly of 'legal' status.

All this law does is allow local enforcement to work in conjunction with federal officials in determining the status of individuals. Also it enforces laws for employers on the books as well.

There no racial profiling ghost law in this bill that makes all Hispanics a target. There's no ghost law in here that tells an officer to stop random people on the street. It's nothing ilke that whatsoever.

Just highlighting where you statements conflict with each other.

"look a certain way" ....oh like a day laborer

"talk a certain way" .....oh like in a foreign language

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Just highlighting where you statements conflict with each other.

"look a certain way" ....oh like a day laborer

"talk a certain way" .....oh like in a foreign language

You're being very 'selective' in how you break that down and are taking what I'm saying completely out of context and you know it.

[Peikko 1,575]

You're being very 'selective' in how you break that down and are taking what I'm saying completely out of context and you know it.

He's really not. I think Sousouka has a pretty firm grasp on the issues; unlike you, who despite your claims of impartiality, critical thinking and clarity, seem to constantly get swept up in partisan rhetoric.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just highlighting where you statements conflict with each other.

"look a certain way" ....oh like a day laborer

"talk a certain way" .....oh like in a foreign language

[Obama 2012 1,714]

He's really not. I think Sousouka has a pretty firm grasp on the issues; unlike you, who despite your claims of impartiality, critical thinking and clarity, seem to constantly get swept up in partisan rhetoric.

Clearly ignorance is running through your mind as well.

If you had any sense of literacy, you would read it exactly as I wrote it. I was depicting two separate scenarios in my previous post. One of which was not suppose to happen based on this law, and one of which could happen based on this law.

There's nothing partisan about that.

Granted, all you would rather do is attack me than actually read what I said.

[Peikko 1,575]

Clearly ignorance is running through your mind as well.

If you had any sense of literacy, you would read it exactly as I wrote it. I was depicting two separate scenarios in my previous post. One of which was not suppose to happen based on this law, and one of which could happen based on this law.

There's nothing partisan about that.

Granted, all you would rather do is attack me than actually read what I said.

Of course, I now know what to expect

[PhiLandShiR 18]

What is the cause for stopping the van of day laborers??

Simply because they are day laborers?

If so them I have a problem with this....

The law doesn't allow officers to stop random people because they 'look' a certain way or 'talk' a certain way, despite the rhetoric out there.

The law works so in cases where they would NORMALLY be involved in a law enforcement situation, they would be questioned further/detained if the 'shoe fits' so to speak. - You get pulled over by a cop, you have NO ID, you can't communicate, etc. then that officer is going to look into who you are. -- Guess what, a "white" person is just as much checked out if they don't have an ID as well.

OR you pull over a large van, pull of day laborers.. It's pretty well good to assume that those in the back of the van/truck aren't exactly of 'legal' status.

All this law does is allow local enforcement to work in conjunction with federal officials in determining the status of individuals. Also it enforces laws for employers on the books as well.

There no racial profiling ghost law in this bill that makes all Hispanics a target. There's no ghost law in here that tells an officer to stop random people on the street. It's nothing ilke that whatsoever.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What is the cause for stopping the van of day laborers??

Simply because they are day laborers?

If so them I have a problem with this....

The law does not allow for that.

It has to be a legal reason for the vehicle to be pulled over.--- Speeding, traffic violation, other vehicle violation, etc. - Nothing allows them to "just pull them over because they think they are illegal."