No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

[Moonandstar 6]

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.

I would imagine so. Again, whatever federal law is at any given time, that is effectively what AZ 10-something is.

However, there are already soooo many agencies in the US that have all these long lists of terrorists, persons suspected of being terrorists, no fly terr lists and what not. Whats the problem with a federal "illegal immigrant" list? I think thats a hell of a lot more constitutional than a "terror" list. These people have actually committed crimes, weather it "feel" like a crime or not. Accusing someone of being a 'terrorist', however, often involves little more than some badmouthing at the US govt.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Moonandstar

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The judge in this case is awesome really.

Who knows how she'll rule, but she's asking the right questions and seems a bit irritated by the DOJ's irrational arguments.

She sees it for the politics that it is on the part of the Feds and is questioning them hard on the issues.

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

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.

Tiresome? That amicus brief came from Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. There have been several prominent constitutional scholars who've also made similar arguments. Furthermore, you seemed to overlook their primary argument:

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

I would venture to guess that you and most people who support SB1070 don't really know the difference between an investigative detention and a de facto arrest. I sure didn't until I began reading the legal arguments, however, I felt from the beginning that any law which gives authority to law enforcement to detain someone without bail on mere suspicion is on the wrong side of the Constitution. Supporters of SB1070 falsely claim that the law doesn't do anything new that existing Federal Law already does. Maybe you'll get tired of hearing these legal points, but they are valid and they demonstrate why SB1070 will be ruled as unconstitutional.

Edited July 24, 2010 by El Buscador

[evli1966 88]

Tiresome? That amicus brief came from Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. There have been several prominent constitutional scholars who've also made similar arguments. Furthermore, you seemed to overlook their primary argument:

I would venture to guess that you and most people who support SB1070 don't really know the difference between an investigative detention and a de facto arrest. I sure didn't until I began reading the legal arguments, however, I felt from the beginning that any law which gives authority to law enforcement to detain someone without bail on mere suspicion is on the wrong side of the Constitution. Supporters of SB1070 falsely claim that the law doesn't do anything new that existing Federal Law already does. Maybe you'll get tired of hearing these legal points, but they are valid and they demonstrate why SB1070 will be ruled as unconstitutional.

Please Steve your issue should be with the 4th amendment if you have problem with "Investigative Detention" not with the SB1070 law.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm

Investigative detention is used daily and even with reasonable suspicion innocent citizens are detained. I believe it is up to 48 hours with out an arrest in most areas.

Now if enough evidence is obtained in that time frame a person can be arrested.

This law has been upheld by the supreme court even though it has ruined many innocent lives; although it has allowed LE to pull criminals from the street faster.

So again Steve if you wish to protect the constitutional rights of LEGAL RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS (because we know you wouldn't be trying to stop a law to allow illegals to continue the illegal activities) then the your fight is with the 4th amendment.

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

Please Steve your issue should be with the 4th amendment if you have problem with "Investigative Detention" not with the SB1070 law.

http://www.cga.ct.go...2007-R-0036.htm

Investigative detention is used daily and even with reasonable suspicion innocent citizens are detained. I believe it is up to 48 hours with out an arrest in most areas.

Now if enough evidence is obtained in that time frame a person can be arrested.

This law has been upheld by the supreme court even though it has ruined many innocent lives; although it has allowed LE to pull criminals from the street faster.

So again Steve if you wish to protect the constitutional rights of LEGAL RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS (because we know you wouldn't be trying to stop a law to allow illegals to continue the illegal activities) then the your fight is with the 4th amendment.

from the link you posted:

a police officer is permitted to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion, that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The ability to detain an individual under these circumstances is typically referred to as investigative detention. The purpose of such a detention is to maintain the status quo while investigating the circumstances that give rise to the suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.

Failure to show proper documentation regarding your legal status is not criminal wrongdoing and is not an arrestable offense. Otherwise, if it were, then SB1070 would be unnecessary. But for the sake of argument, even if it were a criminal offense, an officer who suspects someone they've stopped is here illegally, and the suspect fails to provide satisfactory documentation to the officer, the only way the officer can be sure of whether the suspect is here legally or not, is to rely on USCIS to verify the person's status. As the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice's amicus explained, waiting for an answer from USCIS could take days, weeks or even months. In the meantime, according to SB1070, the suspect will be detained without bail. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand for the supporters of SB1070, that this would be a clear violation of person's constitutional rights. For anyone to potentially be detained indefinitely on mere suspicion that they are here illegally is disturbing and even more troubling that supporters of SB1070 who do understand that don't see it as a civil rights issue.

Edited July 24, 2010 by El Buscador

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't understand the retardlicans outrage on this topic. It is quite clear, with regards to deporting people or expelling them from this nation, it is a federal matter. A state usurping this authority is assuming authority that is strictly reserved for the federal government. Whether or not you agree with the federal governments assertion of this authority is strictly superfluous. Stop the self-righteous indignation, it only makes you look ignorant.

The Arizona law does not address deportation. You are arguing an issue that is not at stake or not part of the question. Why? I mean you are free to shadow box, it only makes you look silly (invent something that doesn't exist and fight it) But the court understands the real arguments and real issues and the Arizaona law, useless as it is, will be upheld because it is not unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution which forbids states from enforcing US Federal laws, or passing state laws which mimic Federal laws. States are ONLY restricted from making state laws LESS strict than Federal Laws.

To argue that states cannot enforce federal law would mean they could not have made arrests for alcoho, during prohibiton, they could not make arrests for bank robbery or kidnapping. Preposterous.

[peejay 327]

from the link you posted:

Failure to show proper documentation regarding your legal status is not criminal wrongdoing and is not an arrestable offense. Otherwise, if it were, then SB1070 would be unnecessary. But for the sake of argument, even if it were a criminal offense, an officer who suspects someone they've stopped is here illegally, and the suspect fails to provide satisfactory documentation to the officer, the only way the officer can be sure of whether the suspect is here legally or not, is to rely on USCIS to verify the person's status. As the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice's amicus explained, waiting for an answer from USCIS could take days, weeks or even months. In the meantime, according to SB1070, the suspect will be detained without bail. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand for the supporters of SB1070, that this would be a clear violation of person's constitutional rights. For anyone to potentially be detained indefinitely on mere suspicion that they are here illegally is disturbing and even more troubling that supporters of SB1070 who do understand that don't see it as a civil rights issue.

If it's not an arrestable offense, why are illegal aliens arrested, detained, and subsequently deported for merely being illegally present? That has been the case for decades.

As far as the other issues....why would someone languish in jail for months? My foreign born wife and stepdaughter can prove instantly that they are legally present as can my US born azz. They and I don't even have to wait for US-CIS to concur.

[evli1966 88]

from the link you posted:

Failure to show proper documentation regarding your legal status is not criminal wrongdoing and is not an arrestable offense. Otherwise, if it were, then SB1070 would be unnecessary. But for the sake of argument, even if it were a criminal offense, an officer who suspects someone they've stopped is here illegally, and the suspect fails to provide satisfactory documentation to the officer, the only way the officer can be sure of whether the suspect is here legally or not, is to rely on USCIS to verify the person's status. As the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice's amicus explained, waiting for an answer from USCIS could take days, weeks or even months. In the meantime, according to SB1070, the suspect will be detained without bail. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand for the supporters of SB1070, that this would be a clear violation of person's constitutional rights. For anyone to potentially be detained indefinitely on mere suspicion that they are here illegally is disturbing and even more troubling that supporters of SB1070 who do understand that don't see it as a civil rights issue.

Steve

Please it has already been stated it is a federal law for legal immigrants to carry their documents.

However, many immigrants may not be aware of the fact that it is a legal requirement for Permanent Residents to carry their Permanent Resident Card with them at all times. If and only when a Permanent Residence chooses to become a naturalised citizen of America will they relinquish their Permanent Resident Card and no longer have to carry it with them. Under the "Now that you are a Permanent Resident" heading on the USCIS web site, it states: "The Permanent Resident Card, Form I-551, is issued to all Permanent Residents as evidence of alien registration and their Permanent status in the US. The card must be in your possession at all times."

Carrying your Permanent Resident Card with you means you will be able to easily prove to new employers that you are eligible to work legally in America. Presenting a Social Security Card along with your passport will not be considered sufficient proof of your eligibility.

Your assuming again that in a hypothetical situation an American citizen or legal resident is going to be detained after a legal and lawful stop because they will not have proper ID courts rule based on facts not hyperbole. By the way Federal law allows Federal officials to detain someone with out documents.

Aagin your fight is with the 4th amendment and you will be losing that one as well.

Your argument was weak to start and is getting weaker. As stated before when AZ SB1070 is upheld will you promote anarchy against our beloved Constitution because you no longer agree with the laws that have been passed? Will you be the part of the few who would like to engage the American People in violent protests of such laws that are upheld by the supreme court?

I am beginning to believe your agenda is more sinister than you admit and your trying to hide it by using the constitution as a shield.

Edited July 24, 2010 by evli1966

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

Geez, this argument is becoming circular. I will refer to the AACJ's brief:

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 arrest, and SB 1070 seeks to do just that...

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.

evil, if you can't understand that legal argument, then its fruitless to keep going back and forth with you on this. This is a perfect example of where regular joes seem to think they know better than the experts. This seems to be a trend among Right Wingers who tend to have a general disdain for experts in whatever field of study.

Edited July 24, 2010 by El Buscador

[evli1966 88]

Geez, this argument is becoming circular. I will refer to the AACJ's brief:

evil, if you can't understand that legal argument, then its fruitless to keep going back and forth with you on this. This is a perfect example of where regular joes seem to think they know better than the experts. This seems to be a trend among Right Wingers who tend to have a general disdain for experts in whatever field of study.

The 1.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, 2.it is possible for police to exceed the permissible scope of the stop and convert an investigative detention into a de facto arrest, and SB 1070 seeks to do just that...

3.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.

I numbered them for the ease if your understanding please forward to the DOJ for their understanding as to why they are not going to win.

1. Again court ruling will be based on facts not hyperbole conjecture. Statutory scheme refers to what could happen not what would happen. Do you you and the DOJ need a definition between could and would?

2. Possible the again possible describes an event that could happen but not what would happen. The federal law is in place to prevent this as mentioned in the previous post.

the law that states this is federal immigration laws 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) or § 1306(a)

Here is the welcome pdf given to legal residence.

Your Rights and Responsibilities

What you do now as a permanent resident can affect

your ability to become a U.S. citizen later. The process of

becoming a U.S. citizen is called "naturalization."

As a permanent resident, you have the right to:

• Live and work permanently anywhere in the U.S.

• Apply to become a U.S. citizen once you are eligible.

• Request visas for your husband or wife and unmarried

children to live in the U.S.

• Get Social Security, Supplemental Security Income,

and Medicare benefits, if you are eligible.

• Own property in the U.S.

• Apply for a driver's license in your state or territory.

• Leave and return to the U.S. under certain conditions.

• Attend public school and college.

• Join certain branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.

• Purchase or own a firearm, as long as there are no state

or local restrictions saying you can't.

As a permanent resident, it is your responsibility to:

• Obey all federal, state, and local laws.

• Pay federal, state, and local income taxes.

• Register with the Selective Service (U.S. Armed

Forces), if you are a male between ages 18 and 26.

See page 11 for instructions.

• Maintain your immigration status.

• Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all

times.

• Change your address online or provide it in writing

to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

within 10 days of each time you move. See page 12

for instructions.

http://www.uscis.gov...ments/M-618.pdf

3. it can if the person is following the laws and carrying required documents at all times. Or valid ID for citizens.

again I believe it is you who fail to fully understand the wording of the challenges; it is a twist or word definitions to ply against the court in hopes of winning an argument.

This is why all the challenges to date were refuted and the judge is being careful in her decision.

Show me a defense that is twisting those words.

BTW I stated previously one of the defenses rebuttals would be the Federal government setting precedence by training local officials and not being able to enforce on it's own; it was used.

Edited July 24, 2010 by evli1966

[NVC FAN :( 18]

I have not read the law and dont want to. i just like that it pisses obama off and all the illegals.

so i hope it passes

[peejay 327]

Geez, this argument is becoming circular. I will refer to the AACJ's brief:

evil, if you can't understand that legal argument, then its fruitless to keep going back and forth with you on this. This is a perfect example of where regular joes seem to think they know better than the experts. This seems to be a trend among Right Wingers who tend to have a general disdain for experts in whatever field of study.

But somehow since you are a far Left liberal, you can grasp all these legal concepts even though you yourself are far from being trained in nor are you an expert in these complex legal points? When, in fact, you flail around blindly trying to validate your dislike for SB1070 with whatever articles you can dig up opposing it. Meanwhile, there are just as many legal experts that opine that SB1070 is legit. What makes your Left wing "experts" any more definitive than the Right wing "experts"? That is what the layers of courts and appeals courts up to the SCOTUS are all about.

[mawilson 2,133]

Poor wording on my part. Reading, interpreting and understanding are not interchangeable in that one shouldn't assume that because one reads something, that they understand what they've read or have interpreted correctly. All communication is subject to interpretation, but with law, there is almost a futile attempt to minimize the different possibilities of interpretation. Even still, we have courts to interpret laws.

We got it. Only lawyers and constitutional scholars can understand The Law. Us mere mortals shouldn't even try

[Peikko 1,575]

We got it. Only lawyers and constitutional scholars can understand The Law. Us mere mortals shouldn't even try

I have to concur, in that Steve is arguing that only he has a good grasp on the law, while everyone else is floundering around. If it requires the services of a judge to form an opinion as to its legality, then the arguments are complex and no one side has a monopoly on its interpretation, however much I might wish that to be the case as I really, really dislike the idea of being required to carry documentation to avoid indefinite incarceration.

[peejay 327]

I have to concur, in that Steve is arguing that only he has a good grasp on the law, while everyone else is floundering around. If it requires the services of a judge to form an opinion as to its legality, then the arguments are complex and no one side has a monopoly on its interpretation, however much I might wish that to be the case as I really, really dislike the idea of being required to carry documentation to avoid indefinite incarceration.

You will not be subject to infinite incarceration and automatic deportation just because you forgot your Green Card at home. That is not the case under SB1070 nor under present federal statutes. You will be detained until someone can fetch your Green Card and your status is determined.

I actually have a Belarusian friend and his Kazakhstani girlfriend that got stopped at an US Border Patrol checkpoint outside of Corpus Christi, TX several years ago when they visited South Padre Island for the weekend. Corpus Christi is a long way from the border if you don't know. He had his Green Card and had no problems. She left her student visa and ID at home in Houston since she wasn't driving and had no clue she would find herself in that predicament. What a mistake! They arrested and detained her until her roommate could FAX the documents to the Border Patrol detention center. This is no laughing matter. Carry your documents! Why be foolish?