Arizona Immigrant Law

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama intends to sue Arizona to nullify its new immigrant law. So I read the Federal Law and it already authorizes police officers to stop and arrest illegals.

It looks like Obama's suit is BS thats going nowhere. In effect he wants the court to order police to ignore federal laws. Aint gonna happen.

 

[JackLuis]

Illegal is illegal. Don't tell me the Government is now going to have to enforce the law?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JACK

The conflict is a red herring because Federal Law already authorizes state/local cops to make arrests. This goes for almost every federal law. But the Feds wont enforce the immigration laws. Most of the penalties involve fines, deportation, and confiscation of vehicles and real estate. If you get caught with 10 illegal employees or more Uncle Sambo can take your meat packing plant or your farm or whatever. They can put you in jail for 6 months, too.

 

[JackLuis]

JACK

The conflict is a red herring because Federal Law already authorizes state/local cops to make arrests. This goes for almost every federal law. But the Feds wont enforce the immigration laws. Most of the penalties involve fines, deportation, and confiscation of vehicles and real estate. If you get caught with 10 illegal employees or more Uncle Sambo can take your meat packing plant or your farm or whatever. They can put you in jail for 6 months, too.

But they won't, haven't, don't intend too, the Government is too busy helping out the Iraqi's and Afghans. They got no time for an invasion on their own soil.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The whole idea sounds ridiculous. The law calls for enforcement of existing laws. Do the Feds actually want to tell the state and local police to stop enforcing the laws?

 

[TE999]

Obeyme's dissing of Arizona's law, futile though it may be, is another sop to his voting base of minorities and bleeding heart Northeast Liberals. Who wants to bet that those businesses who routinely hire and depend on illegals as low cost workers give big bucks to the Democratic Party...and the Republican's too.

It's also a calculated, cynical pandering to gain favor among Hispanics. Just imagine which party those uncounted millions of illegals would vote for in coming elections if given amnesty, automatic citizenship and carte blanche to feed at the federal trough.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The whole idea sounds ridiculous. The law calls for enforcement of existing laws. Do the Feds actually want to tell the state and local police to stop enforcing the laws?

Thats why the whole conflict is a red herring; Obama's issue boils down to DONT ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW. So states can ignore smugglers and drug flights and kidnapping and all the rest.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obeyme's dissing of Arizona's law, futile though it may be, is another sop to his voting base of minorities and bleeding heart Northeast Liberals. Who wants to bet that those businesses who routinely hire and depend on illegals as low cost workers give big bucks to the Democratic Party...and the Republican's too.

It's also a calculated, cynical pandering to gain favor among Hispanics. Just imagine which party those uncounted millions of illegals would vote for in coming elections if given amnesty, automatic citizenship and carte blanche to feed at the federal trough.

I recently read a book of predictions for the 21st Century. The author predicts amnesty for the illegals, secession by the Southwest States once the illegals dominate the Southwestern States, and war with Mexico when the US acts to restore the Union.

And I cant even imagine one Democrat grabbing her squirrel shooter and sprinting to enlist in the Usual Suspect Volunteers.

 

[amicus]

]I recently read a book of predictions for the 21st Century. The author predicts amnesty for the illegals, secession by the Southwest States once the illegals dominate the Southwestern States, and war with Mexico when the US acts to restore the Union.

And I cant even imagine one Democrat grabbing her squirrel shooter and sprinting to enlist in the Usual Suspect Volunteers.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

Heh!

 

[DeeZire]

Opponents of the law see it through the eyes of Amicus, decrying the use of government funds and resources to form a "police state" where the populace can be stopped for no other reason than for moving about freely in public. I would go find one of Ami's verbose and pompous posts decrying the power of the Federal government to restrict personal liberties, but we've all seen way too many of of those already.

The only way for the law to work would be if it's applied to everyone equally - which means, instead of the police protecting citizens from crime, they will spend all their time checking to see if all citizens - not just Latinos - are in the USA legally. This is the argument made by law enforcement agencies - that the law is an unfunded federal mandate forcing them to divert resources they would have used to protect the public from crime. This, in turn, brings us back to the argument that immigration enforcement is a task for the Feds, not the locals. If the Feds were to add funding for the new enforcement duties mandated by the law, law enforcement agencies would be more inclined to accept it (even if Ami wouldn't, because of the personal liberties issue.)

Imagine you're running a police department in a small town in Arizona. You have maybe ten officers on your force, which is barely enough to keep up with the usual bullshit - domestic violence, burglaries, vandalism, drug dealers, bar fights. Now, with this new law, if a police officer is on his way to a domestic violence call, and he drives past a car full of Mexicans, but he doesn't stop to check on the suspected illegals, he can be sued by a private citizen for not doing his job. Meanwhile, the domestic violence call has been neglected, and by this time the white redneck has beaten his Hispanic wife to a pulp.

*slaps forehead with palm*
Now I know why Amicus is such a big fan of this law.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Opponents of the law see it through the eyes of Amicus, decrying the use of government funds and resources to form a "police state" where the populace can be stopped for no other reason than for moving about freely in public. I would go find one of Ami's verbose and pompous posts decrying the power of the Federal government to restrict personal liberties, but we've all seen way too many of of those already.

The only way for the law to work would be if it's applied to everyone equally - which means, instead of the police protecting citizens from crime, they will spend all their time checking to see if all citizens - not just Latinos - are in the USA legally. This is the argument made by law enforcement agencies - that the law is an unfunded federal mandate forcing them to divert resources they would have used to protect the public from crime. This, in turn, brings us back to the argument that immigration enforcement is a task for the Feds, not the locals. If the Feds were to add funding for the new enforcement duties mandated by the law, law enforcement agencies would be more inclined to accept it (even if Ami wouldn't, because of the personal liberties issue.)

Imagine you're running a police department in a small town in Arizona. You have maybe ten officers on your force, which is barely enough to keep up with the usual bullshit - domestic violence, burglaries, vandalism, drug dealers, bar fights. Now, with this new law, if a police officer is on his way to a domestic violence call, and he drives past a car full of Mexicans, but he doesn't stop to check on the suspected illegals, he can be sued by a private citizen for not doing his job. Meanwhile, the domestic violence call has been neglected, and by this time the white redneck has beaten his Hispanic wife to a pulp.

*slaps forehead with palm*
Now I know why Amicus is such a big fan of this law.

Under the new law, as with any law I have ever heard of, the cop would ignore the car ful of Mexicans, unless they were doing something illegal. If the driver appeared to be drunk or it was a stolen car, or something else, he might or might not stop it and check on the ID of the driver, and maybe the passengers, just as the cop would do for a car full of people of any other nationality.

Local cops are already called upon to investigate violations of state or federal laws, and this would not change. For instance, they enforce laws against bank robbery, although this is usually a federal offense. Now, however, they may be called upon to enforce another federal law, but only in conjunction with some other possible violation. If a cop is in a mall in Phoenix and hears some people conversing in Spanish, he would ignore them, unless he understood them and they were plotting sonme crime. However, if he arrests somebody in the mall for shoplifting, he may ask for ID if he has reason to think the suspect might be an illegal. Just exactly what this would include I don't know, but it would probably include inability to speak English.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Under the new law, as with any law I have ever heard of, the cop would ignore the car ful of Mexicans, unless they were doing something illegal. If the driver appeared to be drunk or it was a stolen car, or something else, he might or might not stop it and check on the ID of the driver, and maybe the passengers, just as the cop would do for a car full of people of any other nationality.

Local cops are already called upon to investigate violations of state or federal laws, and this would not change. For instance, they enforce laws against bank robbery, although this is usually a federal offense. Now, however, they may be called upon to enforce another federal law, but only in conjunction with some other possible violation. If a cop is in a mall in Phoenix and hears some people conversing in Spanish, he would ignore them, unless he understood them and they were plotting sonme crime. However, if he arrests somebody in the mall for shoplifting, he may ask for ID if he has reason to think the suspect might be an illegal. Just exactly what this would include I don't know, but it would probably include inability to speak English.

Box, if the individual is arrested then for sure they would get his ID, no if ands or buts about that. What happens if he's an illegal after that was...what?

Opponents of the law see it through the eyes of Amicus, decrying the use of government funds and resources to form a "police state" where the populace can be stopped for no other reason than for moving about freely in public. I would go find one of Ami's verbose and pompous posts decrying the power of the Federal government to restrict personal liberties, but we've all seen way too many of of those already.

The only way for the law to work would be if it's applied to everyone equally - which means, instead of the police protecting citizens from crime, they will spend all their time checking to see if all citizens - not just Latinos - are in the USA legally. This is the argument made by law enforcement agencies - that the law is an unfunded federal mandate forcing them to divert resources they would have used to protect the public from crime. This, in turn, brings us back to the argument that immigration enforcement is a task for the Feds, not the locals. If the Feds were to add funding for the new enforcement duties mandated by the law, law enforcement agencies would be more inclined to accept it (even if Ami wouldn't, because of the personal liberties issue.)

Imagine you're running a police department in a small town in Arizona. You have maybe ten officers on your force, which is barely enough to keep up with the usual bullshit - domestic violence, burglaries, vandalism, drug dealers, bar fights. Now, with this new law, if a police officer is on his way to a domestic violence call, and he drives past a car full of Mexicans, but he doesn't stop to check on the suspected illegals, he can be sued by a private citizen for not doing his job. Meanwhile, the domestic violence call has been neglected, and by this time the white redneck has beaten his Hispanic wife to a pulp.

*slaps forehead with palm*
Now I know why Amicus is such a big fan of this law.

As the Federal Law already requires LEO's to enforce Immigration laws what's the problem? The AZ law does nothing more than re-enforce the current Federal law. Why is that so hard to you dunderheads to wrap you squirmy little brains around? Smoke too much dope in college? Drink to excess? Learn too much of the liberal art shit? What?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, if the individual is arrested then for sure they would get his ID, no if ands or buts about that. What happens if he's an illegal after that was...what?

As the Federal Law already requires LEO's to enforce Immigration laws what's the problem? The AZ law does nothing more than re-enforce the current Federal law. Why is that so hard to you dunderheads to wrap you squirmy little brains around? Smoke too much dope in college? Drink to excess? Learn too much of the liberal art shit? What?

I suppose a person with a valid ID would be treated like any other suspect. A suspect with no ID, expecially one who spoke poor English or spoke with a strong foreign accent would, I suppose, be subject to further investigation.

I have also never been able to understand why people get their knickers in a twist over the law. It requires cops to enforce the law. They should have been doing that all along.

 

[DeeZire]

...As the Federal Law already requires LEO's to enforce Immigration laws what's the problem? The AZ law does nothing more than re-enforce the current Federal law. Why is that so hard to you dunderheads to wrap you squirmy little brains around? Smoke too much dope in college? Drink to excess? Learn too much of the liberal art shit? What?

Here's an interesting piece on the constitutionality of SB1070. It contains no insults or name-calling, so it might be beyond Zeb's comprehension, but I'm posting it anyway.

http://www.commonsensethoughtcontro...1070-unconstitutional-no-matter-how-its-spun/

Excerpt:

Equal Protection for All People

The fourteenth amendment states, in part, the following:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are two standards set forth here, one that applies to the citizens of the United States, and another that applies to anyone under the jurisdiction of United State law. If the line of reasoning set forth by Madison were not convincing, the clear and explicit words in this amendment show that equal protection of rights does not disappear due to immigration status in the country. This protection was upheld in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, where it was ruled that:

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Arizona’s Law Runs Afoul of Current Jurisprudence

This law provides a reason for an officer to engage any suspect they believe to be here illegally, as an officer may stop and ask for the name of any person who they have reasonable suspicion “has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” Since this law makes being here illegally a matter of criminal (not just civil) law – trespassing – an officer has no higher burden under which they must operate. Previously, SB1070 required the officer see the person and have a reasonable suspicion they are an illegal immigrant in order to stop them and determine their immigration status. Now, the amended version requires them to be lawfully stopping a person under reasonable suspicion of committing a crime – such as trespassing.

The Law Does Not Meet Search and Seizure Standards

The “reasonable suspicion” standard, established in Terry v. Ohio, requires that intrusion into the personal and Constitutionally protected rights of personal effects, papers, etc must both serve “the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion” and be justified with “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”

The twofold requirements for such a warrantless search and seizure of any person’s private affairs are not met by Arizona’s law. In order to justify the warrantless intrusion upon a person’s freedoms and private affairs, there must be a “compelling” governmental interest that so outweighs the loss of any individual’s privacy that any delay would pose a threat to the United States. This standard comes from Korematsu v. United States, where the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2 was justified under the following test:

The judicial test of whether the Government, on a plea of military necessity, can validly deprive an individual of any of his constitutional rights is whether the deprivation is reasonably related to a public danger that is so ‘immediate, imminent, and impending’ as not to admit of delay and not to permit the intervention of ordinary constitutional processes to alleviate the danger.

Arizona’s law does not address a situation where the failure to enact its policies poses “immediate, imminent, and impending” danger to the United States public. Moreover, the Terry standard allows only the brief frisking of an individual in order to secure the safety of an investigating officer, not a search into the person’s identification records and immigration status, which is a much higher level of personal intrusion. Under another case, Hiibel v. Nevada, it was determined that “Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.” Arizona’s relevant statute, mentioned earlier provides that “A person detained under this section shall state the person’s true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.” This standard does not allow Arizona’s requirement under SB1070 to provide valid identification in the course of a Terry stop. A similar law to Arizona’s was tried and found to violate the Constitution in Brown v. Texas:

The Texas statute under which appellant was stopped and required to identify himself is designed to advance a weighty social objective in large metropolitan centers: prevention of crime. But even assuming that purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow it. When such a stop is not based on objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits.

The Law Impedes Upon Freedom to Contract

Under Yick Wo v. Hopkins, “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts.” Arizona’s law sets an unequal standard:

C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

A simple thought experiment shows the invalidity of this statute under the equal contract framework. Two individuals, both are immigrants, and both are of the same race, age, build, et cetera are seeking a job as a day laborer. Both stand on a private parking lot, waiting to be hired. One person is illegally present within the United States, the other is not. Under Arizona’s bill, the person who is not legally present may not make a contract for such work. Moreover, should they engage in work anyway, but are not paid, they lose a means for legal recourse, as the state will not enforce the contract they make. This violates both Wo and Reitman, and clearly shows that the law is unequally applied to different persons within the jurisdiction of Arizona state.

Granted, there will be legal opinions in support of SB1070, since the interpretation of law is a science unto itself. The fact remains that we are a nation ruled by laws derived from the constitution. If some would prefer to ignore the constitution, I would question their patriotism, as well as their judgment.

Here's an editorial conclusion added by the author that bears consideration, especially in light of the fact that all of us non-Native Americans living here in the USA are descendants of immigrants who came to this country in search of a better life:

It is my opinion that the solution to this problem is a federal expansion of legal avenues for immigration, with strict federal penalties for failure to follow the channels. We should not be turning away those people who are willing to come here and work, but should see them as seekers of the American dream. Millions of people could be productive contributors to our society, if we provided a path that did not have a many-year backlog from application through acceptance. In providing such a means to citizenship, we could turn the tide of illegal immigration into a means of raising our country’s GDP through an increase of legal workers, positively contributing to our economy and our country’s rich cultural heritage.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEE ZIRE

Your 'legal opinion' is pish posh cuz the Federal Law prohibiting illegal immigration already exists. Your guy is trying to argue that murder by short people is less serious than murder by tall people.

The Feds and States enact duplicate law all the time, in fact the 14th Amendment imposes the Federal Constitution on the States.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

James, it doesn't matter what the law says to Dee or the current administration they just don't like conservative ideals or libertarian policies. They want it their way and only their way.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

They want designer laws and rules they like.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here's an interesting piece on the constitutionality of SB1070. It contains no insults or name-calling, so it might be beyond Zeb's comprehension, but I'm posting it anyway.

http://www.commonsensethoughtcontro...1070-unconstitutional-no-matter-how-its-spun/

Excerpt:

Granted, there will be legal opinions in support of SB1070, since the interpretation of law is a science unto itself. The fact remains that we are a nation ruled by laws derived from the constitution. If some would prefer to ignore the constitution, I would question their patriotism, as well as their judgment.

Here's an editorial conclusion added by the author that bears consideration, especially in light of the fact that all of us non-Native Americans living here in the USA are descendants of immigrants who came to this country in search of a better life:

It is my opinion that the solution to this problem is a federal expansion of legal avenues for immigration, with strict federal penalties for failure to follow the channels. We should not be turning away those people who are willing to come here and work, but should see them as seekers of the American dream. Millions of people could be productive contributors to our society, if we provided a path that did not have a many-year backlog from application through acceptance. In providing such a means to citizenship, we could turn the tide of illegal immigration into a means of raising our country’s GDP through an increase of legal workers, positively contributing to our economy and our country’s rich cultural heritage.

Out of curiosity, who wrote the opinion you cited? Whoever it was apparently did not have enough confidence in it to sign it. I have no particular legal training, but I saw errors and misrepresentations in it. I think it is safe to assume that the AZ legislators, many of them lawyers, and the AZ AG vetted the new law before putting it up for a vote, because they wanted to take no risk of running afoul of the Constitution.

I agree with the last part of your post, which is why I included it. There is a method inl place for the US to accept immigrants, but the standard is high. Many of the illegals from Mexico would not be able to meet those standards.

I have some relatives who are illegals, and one person living in my house who will become an illegal. The people I refer to are fine, upstanding individuals, who contribute to society, or would, if given a chance to do so. Illegals from the Philippines are unable to swim here, so they try to get tourist visas and overstay, entering the underground economy, mostly by working at board and care homes or similar places. This is something of a waste of talent, because these people are frequently educated professionals, who see a better life for themselves in the US than in their homeland.

 

[JackLuis]

Hey how about we appoint Stan McCrystal as Head of Immigration enforcement?

He needs a job and we need someone who has his leadership skills to enforce our laws. Besides, it's an extension of COIN Warfare.

The insurgents are just using different weapons to subvert our laws.

And Stan has experience as a Warden, so he'll know how to clear out the immigration jails quickly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Appoint me; I'll solve the problem in about one hour.

 

[DeeZire]

.... I think it is safe to assume that the AZ legislators, many of them lawyers, and the AZ AG vetted the new law before putting it up for a vote, because they wanted to take no risk of running afoul of the Constitution. ....

The AZ Legislature is run by a bunch of hard right ideologues who wear their ignorance like a badge of honor. I can't imagine any of them making it through law school, much less college, but I'm basing this observation on their performance, not the qualifications they list on their websites.

I didn't notice who wrote the article. I was more interested in the application of the constitution to the proposed legislation. I realize name-calling is the preferred from of discussion for some people around here. I'm just trying to raise the level of discourse so we can actually look past the insults and consider the issues.

While researching the topic, I did discover that a law enforcement officer is allowed to prioritize his response to crimes in progress without fear of getting sued for ignoring an illegal immigrant, which makes the example I posted earlier bogus. Obviously, no one else on this thread was aware of that fact, which means there is a fairly high level of ignorance driving this debate. This is what we must address - the lack of information upon which we base our opinions.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The AZ Legislature is run by a bunch of hard right ideologues who wear their ignorance like a badge of honor. I can't imagine any of them making it through law school, much less college, but I'm basing this observation on their performance, not the qualifications they list on their websites.

I didn't notice who wrote the article. I was more interested in the application of the constitution to the proposed legislation. I realize name-calling is the preferred from of discussion for some people around here. I'm just trying to raise the level of discourse so we can actually look past the insults and consider the issues.

While researching the topic, I did discover that a law enforcement officer is allowed to prioritize his response to crimes in progress without fear of getting sued for ignoring an illegal immigrant, which makes the example I posted earlier bogus. Obviously, no one else on this thread was aware of that fact, which means there is a fairly high level of ignorance driving this debate. This is what we must address - the lack of information upon which we base our opinions.

No, the ignorance involves a government which does not enforce the laws on the book in an equal manner. When a state has to step in to enforce laws which the federal government should there is something wrong with the system. When a federal administration won't uphold the laws of the land then it falls to the states to. Or would you have our boarders open to every Tom, Dick and Jose just wander in and never leave? Would you have every country in the world start dumping their criminal at our shores?

Think about that while you hold you handgun and shake with fear.

 

[DeeZire]

...

Think about that while you hold you handgun and shake with fear.

Zeb, is it possible for you to engage in a civil discussion without throwing in an insult? Actually, the answer doesn't matter. I've wasted way too much time on your BS.

You win.

Bye now.

 

[SeaCat]

I can only speak from the examples of my family but they do show where my feelings on this subject come from.

On my Paternal Side my grandparents immigrated from southern Germany. This was in the 1930's. My Grandfather had managed to get a sponsor here in the United States. He had a job lined up. He was going to be a farmer making much less than he did in Germany, but he was coming to America.

He and his wife went through the background checks to make sure they weren't criminals or political dissidents and received their Visa's. They crossed the ocean in a Steamer along with many others. Many of these didn't survive the trip but my grandparents did.

When they arrived here they worked hard to not only learn the language of the land but to keep a roof over their heads. After a couple of years they both took their exams and became citizens.

Their eldest son, my father, joined the Army. He served in Germany in the 1950's. There he met and married a young German Woman. Because he wished to return to the United States and she wished to accompany him they went through the process. He became her sponsor. She went through the background checks to make sure she wasn't a criminal or a political dissident. She also had to undergo medical checks to make sure she wasn't sick. She was granted a Visa and had the laws explained to her.

She couldn't go on Welfare. She couldn't divorce my father for at least two years after she immigrated. She couldn't be convicted of a crime. If any of these things happened she would lose all rights and be deported.

My parents returned to the United States and my mother began to learn English. She also took courses in the history and laws of what was to become her new homeland. It took her more than a couple of years before she became fluent enough in English to take the exams but she did take her Citizenship Tests and passed them. She had to take these tests in written form as well as oral in English.

On the wall in my parents living room is a picture of her taking her Oath as an American Citizen as well as a copy of her Citizenship.

My Grandparents didn't consider themselves German Americans nor does my mother. They consider themselves Americans. As do I.

I feel very strongly about this. If you want to come here do so legally. If you want to become an American learn our ways and our language. Embrace them as your own. Don't call yourself an African-American, a German-American or anything else. You are an American. (No I'm not saying to forget your history, I certainly haven't forgotten my families history but I am first and foremost an American.)

Cat

 

[Boxlicker101]

The AZ Legislature is run by a bunch of hard right ideologues who wear their ignorance like a badge of honor. I can't imagine any of them making it through law school, much less college, but I'm basing this observation on their performance, not the qualifications they list on their websites.

I didn't notice who wrote the article. I was more interested in the application of the constitution to the proposed legislation. I realize name-calling is the preferred from of discussion for some people around here. I'm just trying to raise the level of discourse so we can actually look past the insults and consider the issues.

While researching the topic, I did discover that a law enforcement officer is allowed to prioritize his response to crimes in progress without fear of getting sued for ignoring an illegal immigrant, which makes the example I posted earlier bogus. Obviously, no one else on this thread was aware of that fact, which means there is a fairly high level of ignorance driving this debate. This is what we must address - the lack of information upon which we base our opinions.

I don't know exactly what the AZ legislators did before being elected to the legislature, but I believe the plurality in other states and in Congress are lawyers, or at least former students of law schools.

There was no byline on the article, which makes me think the writer does not think much of his work. Everybody I ever heard of wants credit for whatever he or she writes. I certainly do.

Of course a cop can prioritize his work. In fact, they have to. If a cop is busy writing tickets for jaywalkers and an "Officer down" call comes in, he'd better drop what he is doing and answer it, if such is feasible.