Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i didn't think you'd step up to the plate and explain it.

If I had "explained" it, we would have to talk about a completely different topic. This thread is not about gun control.

Furthermore, as I explained to you - I referenced the 2nd amendment for illustrative purposes only. Let's try again:

It is a fact that the 2nd amendment has been subject to legal wranglings for decades over perceived ambiguities in the wording of the text. Whatever you think about those wranglings is totally irrelevant - it is merely enough to recognise the fact that they exist.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

~ Hiroshi Motomura, the Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law at the U.C.L.A. School of Law

No state may superimpose its own immigration enforcement regime if it decides that federal law isn’t harsh enough. By trying to do so, Arizona is resorting to self-help even more extreme than the unconstitutional denial of education and other public benefits under California’s Proposition 187 in the mid-1990s. In fact, Arizona has gone so far as to allow anyone to sue state and local officials who seem too lax in enforcing federal immigration law. Supporters of the Arizona law cite “the rule of law” as a justification. The rule of law clearly matters, but this is a very malleable phrase. In judging whether immigration enforcement adheres to the rule of law, it is most important to examine how laws are enforced. From this perspective, it is deeply troubling that Arizona’s new law uses a vague “reasonable suspicion” standard.

This standard gives institutional cover for selective immigration enforcement through racial and ethnic profiling, and for this reason it will lead to constitutional violations if the statute goes into effect. Moreover, though the statute targets noncitizens who are in the U.S. unlawfully, it has an impact on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants who will be caught in the same enforcement net, denying them the rights of other Arizonans to live their lives free from unwarranted suspicion.

~ Hiroshi Motomura, the Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law at the U.C.L.A. School of Law

There is just one small little problem with this line of argument. The AZ law has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. No where does it allow or prevent someone from immigrating. This law is only about dealing with illegal immigrants AFTER they are already here. That isn't immigration, it is law enforcement. There is no conflict with any federal immigration laws.

[DukeOfYork 28]

Really, the larger question for us here on VisaJourney is why any kind of hate talk towards a race or category of people is tolerated.

What hate talk? I haven't seen any.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What hate talk? I haven't seen any.

Apparently it is sarcasm

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There is just one small little problem with this line of argument. The AZ law has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. No where does it allow or prevent someone from immigrating. This law is only about dealing with illegal immigrants AFTER they are already here. That isn't immigration, it is law enforcement. There is no conflict with any federal immigration laws.

The AZ law gives police the power to question someone's status. That's entering immigration law.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Sousuke

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

El Buscador,

Darn, I thought you were going to do the work yourself and demonstrate how the specifics of the AZ law violate the US Constitution. Instead, you posted a legal opinion.

Have you ever been pulled over as a passenger in a car? Where I live, the police ask me for my ID as well as the driver's ID. For people who are here legally, this isn't a problem. I think that's where the "reasonable suspicion" comes into play, don't you? No ID, no English [at least in many cases, but not all], inability to produce ID and then a check with Customs and Border Patrol shows that the subject did not enter with an inspection. I think that's reasonable, don't you? Would you have a problem if the same scenerio happened, but it was ICE or CBE that pulled the same vehicle over and did the same checks?

The AZ law was amended to allow the legal immigration check only when one is lawfully stopped, not just when they're out for their ice cream, as Barry Obama would have you believe.

If you are going to claim that this law is unconstitutional, you will have to unequivically back that claim up.

Legal opinions are really the ones that matter regarding the constitutionality of such laws, as it will be the courts who ultimately decide on the matter.

Local law enforcement do not have the resources or expertise to accurately assess who is here legally or not, while the Border Patrol and ICE do.

Local law enforcement, under SB1070, will detain those they suspect are not here legally until immigration officials take over or clear the person. There is no bail available. What kind of country do you think this is that you think it is okay for law enforcement to throw someone in jail without charging them with a crime and without bail? That is just one aspect of the constitutional problems with this law. Not only that, immigration officials are already overwhelmed with cases which means these suspects will granted temporary work visas because our beloved Constitution prevents someone from being detained indefinitely.

Read here:

Arizona's new immigration law may have been aimed at deporting as many illegal immigrants as possible, but an ironic side effect will allow more undocumented residents to apply for temporary work visas and permanent U.S. citizenship, according to research by the Arizona Capitol Times. The new law will add to a processing backlog that already has caused federal authorities to release an increasing number of illegal immigrants back into the U.S. to await deportation hearings. And if nationwide figures can be applied to Arizona, one in four of those who are released from federal custody fail to appear in court.

The arrest-and-release policy is a little-known part of federal immigration law that allows illegal immigrants to challenge deportation and obtain legal residency, and a driver's license, as long as they meet certain conditions. If more illegal immigrants are apprehended and processed through the federal system – which is expected to happen after Arizona's immigration law takes effect on July 29 – then an even greater number would qualify for legal status.

"In a sense, it's like there's some incentive to get caught," said Tucson immigration attorney Maurice Goldman. "Theoretically, more people would end up in front of immigration judges, which means more would get released."

Right now, federal immigration courts are backed up so severely that it can take as many as five years to schedule trials for illegal immigrants who challenge deportation, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities are so overloaded that thousands of illegal immigrants are released back into Arizona each year to live and work while waiting for a deportation hearing.

More than 5,100 illegal immigrants who were processed through federal immigration courts in Arizona were released from custody on bond in 2009, and the vast majority were eligible for work authorization documents, although precise figures were not available.

In some cases, illegal immigrants may be granted some form of relief, including permanent citizenship, after they've been turned over to ICE.

http://azcapitoltime...-into-citizens/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Legal opinions are really the ones that matter regarding the constitutionality of such laws, as it will be the courts who ultimately decide on the matter.

Yep.

[Pooky 3,784]

Local law enforcement, under SB1070, will detain those they suspect are not here legally until immigration officials take over or clear the person. There is no bail available. What kind of country do you think this is that you think it is okay for law enforcement to throw someone in jail without charging them with a crime and without bail? That is just one aspect of the constitutional problems with this law. Not only that, immigration officials are already overwhelmed with cases which means these suspects will granted temporary work visas because our beloved Constitution prevents someone from being detained indefinitely.

Those legally resident in this country should be able to prove so in a reasonably short space of time. Will they be a little inconvenienced? Yes. Will they mind. Apparently, over 70% of Arizonans won't mind at all. Or maybe they will be prepared, carry ID and not have to deal with it in the first place.

Those not legally resident in this country will just have to put up with the inconvenience of being caught.

[sjr09 155]

I hope AZ pulls the plug

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

Those legally resident in this country should be able to prove so in a reasonably short space of time. Will they be a little inconvenienced? Yes. Will they mind. Apparently, over 70% of Arizonans won't mind at all. Or maybe they will be prepared, carry ID and not have to deal with it in the first place.

Those not legally resident in this country will just have to put up with the inconvenience of being caught.

I presented to you scenarios of how someone who is here legally may carry with them an expired GC, even though they are on extension while they wait for the lifting of conditions. Most here have read or know of someone here who came over on a K-1 visa, but waited beyond the 90 day limit to adjust status. So your reckless assumption has no merit in real world scenarios like the ones I gave you.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Apparently it is sarcasm

just shows how assuming some are. the ones at the courthouse are white - as am i.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

If I had "explained" it, we would have to talk about a completely different topic. This thread is not about gun control.

Furthermore, as I explained to you - I referenced the 2nd amendment for illustrative purposes only. Let's try again:

It is a fact that the 2nd amendment has been subject to legal wranglings for decades over perceived ambiguities in the wording of the text. Whatever you think about those wranglings is totally irrelevant - it is merely enough to recognise the fact that they exist.

i'm glad you finally admit that in bold and will now cease with trying to hijack it.

and thanks for dismissing my thoughts about those wranglings so easily.

[The_Dude 1,142]

i'm glad you finally admit that in bold and will now cease with trying to hijack it.

and thanks for dismissing my thoughts about those wranglings so easily.

Charles, you're either being absurd, or you really are that naive. He brought up the 2nd amendment under the context of interpreting amendments. You were the one who brought gun control into this, completely ignoring the point he was making.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Charles, you're either being absurd, or you really are that naive. He brought up the 2nd amendment under the context of interpreting amendments. You were the one who brought gun control into this, completely ignoring the point he was making.

i don't bring gun control into threads - unless it's a thread advocating a good two handed grip

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I hope AZ pulls the plug

AJ mentioned this earlier, really they can't unless the grid is set up a certain way. Remember the gas issue between Russia and the Ukraine? Same principle. Russia had to cut gas to most of the EU.