No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

[Moonandstar 6]

Don't I wish fact and context were an everyday thing here.

A matter of perspective then.

I thought the context was rather correct on that!

Edited July 23, 2010 by Moonandstar

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That's really a silly question to ask because it assumes that the wording of laws can easily be interpreted by everyone, but for what it's worth to your argument, I have read it extensively. However, I will admit I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. Reading, interpreting and understanding law are mutually exclusive concepts. If those terms were interchangeable, then we wouldn't need courts to decide on legal matters, which probably explains why pro-SB1070 people don't understand why the DOJ has legally challenged the law ("Why is the Obama Administration trying to stop this law?"). And the irony about that is that many pro-SB1070 people were all for wanting the Health Care Bill legally challenged in the courts, to which I'm willing to bet most of them haven't read the full text of the bill. So lets move past the "Did you actually read the law?" and on to the constitutional problems with the law.

The question is not silly at all. Rob & Mel made a ridiculous assertion about the authority the law grants to law enforcement. Many public officials and journalists were doing the same thing shortly after the law passed, and many had to sheepishly admit after a little prodding that they had not actually read the law. Many of those journalists and public officials have since reigned in their rhetoric, and their brief summations of the law's requirements have been more accurate lately. The law is only 10 pages, and it's not difficult for anyone with a high school education to understand. You can hardly compare that with the massive health care bill written by an army of lawyers. Even the legislators who voted for the health care law didn't read it. They relied on their staff to give them summations of the law.

In any case, the question was rhetorical since anyone who had actually read the law would not have made the claim that the law allows Arizona to perform it's own deportations. You don't have to read the law in order to have the right to form an opinion about it, but you do have to actually understand what the law requires in order for your criticisms to be valid.

From Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the state affiliate of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed what is probably the most important brief to date on SB 1070. Therein they argue that violation of established 4th Amendment standards of suspicion inheres in the mandates of 1070:

The statutory scheme created by SB 1070 would subject individuals to de facto arrests absent adequate constitutional protections. SB 1070 proposes to substitute reasonable suspicion for the well-established requirement that an arrest must be justified by probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. Even in cases where an investigative stop by police is justified by reasonable suspicion, it is possible for police to exceed the permissible scope of the stop and convert an investigative detention into a de facto

A person's immigration status is not something that can be determined by state and local law enforcement officers, or even by federal immigration officers, in the context of a brief investigatory detention. Instead, persons seized will be subject to a prolonged detention, for which the Fourth Amendment demands a finding of probable cause. SB 1070, however, permits this prolonged detention without the requisite finding of probable cause that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. arrest, and SB 1070 seeks to do just that...

The AACJ amicus brief goes further than this, arguing that there's almost no way a policeman could possibly have reasonable suspicion that someone was in the US illegally:

In Arizona specifically, reliance on race, language, and dress as the basis for reasonable suspicion used to justify a seizure all but guarantees a constitutional violation.

In a 1985 class action against the INS for engaging in a pattern of unlawful stops to interrogate persons of Hispanic appearance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hispanic appearance and presence in an area where illegal aliens travel is not enough to justify a stop. Nicacio, 797 F.2d at 703. In that case, the government also used the manner of dress as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis. However, the Court rejected that factor, noting that such "characteristics were shared by citizens and legal aliens in the area, as well as illegals. As the district court found, the appearance and dress factors relied upon by the agents 'are a function of the individual's socioeconomic status.'" Id. at 704....

The scheme employed by SB 1070 pays lip service to the constitution by stating that race cannot be the sole factor for making a stop. However, as seen in decades of case law, officers routinely use race as the primary basis for a stop and cite "rote" factors as described in Rodriguez or "profiles" of driving behavior such as those described in Gonzalez-Gutierrez that do not distinguish criminal activity from innocent activity. All too often, our attorneys see cases filed by law enforcement officers of all jurisdictions where the initial stop was based on the driver's demeanor. Included in the list of factors to be used for determining reasonable suspicion include the driver looking at an officer in a parked vehicle as he passes and the driver not looking at the officer...

"Unlawful presence" is a highly technical term, meant to describe the status of individuals who are present in the United States without the proper governmental authorization. Just like citizenship, it cannot be determined by physical appearance or language, but is established by operation of law...

SB 1070 poses an immediate and irreparable harm in that it compels the unlawful detention of U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country. The prolonged detention requirement of A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) immediately violates the rights of every U.S. citizen in Arizona of "Mexican ancestry" or "Hispanic appearance." Although the statute allows a presumption of lawful immigration status if the Hispanic

citizen produces an Arizona state driver's license, there is certainly no requirement under Arizona law for a citizen to possess a driver's license when he or she leaves home each day. And as a citizen, a person of Hispanic appearance or Mexican descent, of course, does not possess valid immigration documents because he or she is not an immigrant.

http://www.aacj.org/....aacj.final.pdf

..............

My counter argument to yours is that anyone who has a basic understanding of SB1070 and a champion of our beloved Constitution will have trouble supporting this law. And as for which opinions matter, it will not pass legal muster in the courts.

That argument is getting tiresome. In other words, the law is unconstitutional because it might be applied in a way that the law itself clearly says it can't be applied. That argument could be made against just about any law you choose to disagree with. There's not much more you can ask a legislature to do beyond making it clear that the law has to be applied in a manner consistent with the Constitution. It's up to the courts to identify and prosecute cases where the law was unconstitutionally applied. But, the simple fact that a law enforcement officer might apply the law incorrectly, and in violation of the law itself, does not make the law unconstitutional.

What's more, the law relies heavily on federal law to define what is or is not illegal. If the US Congress rewrote the INA so that any warm body standing on US soil had a legal right to be there then it would completely defang the Arizona law without having to change a single word in the statute. The Arizona law defers to federal law in defining what constitutes legal presence. This is a classic case of playing the race card because the opponents of the law have no legal ground to stand on, and they are terrified that someone might actually enforce the federal law.

[HAL 9000 96]

A matter of perspective then.

I thought the context was rather correct on that!

Context will always be prone to some people trying to leave parts of the story out.

[Moonandstar 6]

Context will always be prone to some people trying to leave parts of the story out.

Well please deign to enlighten me with the part of the story I've "left out".

Allow me to redirect you to post #28 which might contain anything I've oh so mistakenly "left out".

Next time I'll just post the whole story, for the sake of simplicity.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well please deign to enlighten me with the part of the story I've "left out".

Allow me to redirect you to post #28 which might contain anything I've oh so mistakenly "left out".

Next time I'll just post the whole story, for the sake of simplicity.

Switch to decaf... I don't accuse you of any incomplete considerations.

[Moonandstar 6]

Switch to decaf... I don't accuse you of any incomplete considerations.

I guess that'll have to be decaf tea then.

Alright, I'm just used to people disagreeing with me when they argue with me. (or quote- easily misinterpreted as argue on an internet forum)

Edited July 23, 2010 by Moonandstar

[HAL 9000 96]

I guess that'll have to be decaf tea then.

Alright, I'm just used to people disagreeing with me when they argue with me.

Peace man... its only the internets.

We can call it a discussion.

I had an espresso myself today.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[SMR 368]

Hmm, looks like the "artist" wasn't sure which form of the verb to be to use ("is" or "are"). He left in two and was hoping the editor would remove the incorrect one. The editor failed

In any case, the message is clear. California is, in fact, land.

[Moonandstar 6]

All in favor of ceding California from the Union, say "I".

We'll let General Madonna and her cadre of robo-celebrities take there business elsewhere, yes we will.

Hmm, looks like the "artist" wasn't sure which form of the verb to be to use ("is" or "are"). He left in two and was hoping the editor would remove the incorrect one. The editor failed

In any case, the message is clear. California is, in fact, land.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Moonandstar

[HAL 9000 96]

A bit different interpretation between the Aztlan movement and the nutters here. There is a claim for Aztlan that, as uncomfortable as it might make some folks, has a small political basis in the history of the region. But lets not get that in the way of the idiocy in the matter. Or throwing 'La Raza' as an organization into it as well... something certain posters here are well known to try.

[Peikko 1,575]

This is a good article written by a journalist:

Link

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Don't I wish fact and context were an everyday thing here.

Because Federal immigration enforcement does not stop people on the street as civilian LEOs would be forced to do under this law.

No officer is forced to stop people on the street under SB 1070. Nothing about the stops changes under this law; a violation has to occur for the officer to become involved with a suspect or suspect. After arrest, immigration status can be investigated if the person is suspected to be in the country illegally.

FYI: federal officers can stop people on the street simply to investigate their immigration status. The courts have determined that no provocation is required for them. Open borders advocate the immigration enforcement be limited to federal agencies, but, if those agencies ever put the full force of their power into action, they would be spitting, clawing, lying and suing as much or more about federal enforcement as they are about Arizona's right to control immigration.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Here is a question. Lets say the Federal government repeals 287g (which they have been considering for awhile). Would that then trump the Arizona law?

I notice quite a few people mention the "what might occur". We can actually see what has occurred with 287g which the Arizona law is mirroring and its not pretty.

[HAL 9000 96]

Here is a question. Lets say the Federal government repeals 287g (which they have been considering for awhile). Would that then trump the Arizona law?

I notice quite a few people mention the "what might occur". We can actually see what has occurred with 287g which the Arizona law is mirroring and its not pretty.

That would set up a pretty interesting showdown into the the 'states rights' debate that the 'states rights' crowd has pretty much always lost. I would hope they'd replace it with something and actually enforce it at the Federal level.