Illegal Immigration….Arizona, et al…???

[amicus]

Does the US have a Constitutional obligation to protect its’ borders?

Does a State have the right to legislate when the Federal Government does nothing?

Is ‘Profiling’ by ethnicity immoral or illegal?

Are illegal Latino’s a problem in America?

What is the rational and humane solution to 12 million plus illegal Mexicans in the US?

How do Europeans treat illegal immigrants?

Is this a Partisan issue or a Bi-Partisan one, Republicans versus Democrats?

What role did Latino’s have in the last General Election?

Who are the rioters in Arizona? Why are they violent?



Amicus

 

[Zeb_Carter]

There is a clause in Article I:

Section 8.

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

And...

Section. 9.

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

It does look as if Congress is allowed to restrict entry into the country in section 9, clause 1.

What is the procedure if the Congress/Government give up that right, does it revert to the few states and/or the people?

 

[Carnevil9]

It's enough to make me want to smear a refried bean swastika on the AZ state house!

 

[Huckleman2000]

Who are you to say anything? Show us your papers.

 

[DeeZire]

Who are the rioters in Arizona? Why are they violent?

Amicus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgZDYNQEwlM

If you're talking about this "riot", a white guy of the Tea Party/Minuteman persuasion tried to push his way through the throng of peaceful protesters, hurling insults and being an asshole like most white racists can't help but do. The peaceful protesters reacted as anyone would in that situation. They got in his face and ran him off. Then the cops grabbed the Minuteman agitator dude and hauled him away while someone in the crowd hurled a plastic water bottle. Your characterization of "violent" is a little over the top, Ami, but I would expect nothing less of you.

There are a lot of legal immigrants and Hispanics with American citizenship in AZ. They pay taxes, and vote, and run small businesses, and put their kids through college. They're a little ticked off that they're going to be treated differently than their white neighbors. That's understandable. In a country where everyone is supposed to be created equal, racial profiling can seem a bit - uncivilized?

In his remarks tonight, Jay Leno said that the big problem for Arizona would be the rich white folks having to raise their own kids for a change. LOL

 

[Liar]

How do Europeans treat illegal immigrants?

There's not one answer to that. It's a vastly different situation in for instance Scandianvia compared to the mediterranians.

Up in the north, most immigrants are legal asylum seekers for political or humanitarian reasons, or "natual" immigrants, moving to their family who is already legally here. The issue of people "sneaking in" to work is marginal. I guess we deport them if they're found.

 

[DeeZire]

... racial profiling can seem a bit - uncivilized?

Bad word choice. Let's try "like Nazi Germany."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If the Arizona law were unconstitutional or inconsistent with Federal immigration laws bet the farm Obama or someone would be in court to get an immediate injunction. But no one has gone to federal court for any injunction, so the law is probably on solid ground.

Maybe de Usual Suspects can gets a constitution amendment passed befo de elecshun.

 

[Pure]

simple question

i've watched ami for several years....

has there ever been a measure (law etc) providing that the gov't may detain, arrest, or torture you, on more or less arbitrary grounds, which amicus opposed?

though talking 'liberty,' he favors the state in all these matters on grounds that there's an 'emergency'--for the last few years or decades!

 

[Pure]

as to constitutionality

there's a good argument that the law is invalid on its face; see below, from wall street journal. it also explains a possible reason for the gov't's inaction so far. (politically, the US gov't can capitalize on the situation, as well.)

any number of blogs and sites discuss probs of the statute, and the first one after the article discusses one provision that's already been called (previously) unconstitutional, regarding solicitation of day laborers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/23...ration-bill-its-unconstitutional/tab/article/

WSJ Blogs
Law Blog

Law Profs On Arizona Immigration Bill: It’s Unconstitutional


By Amir Efrati


By now you may have heard about a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona that makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

The law grants police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal. The measure was criticized Friday by President Barack Obama, who asked the Justice Department to research the law.

It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA.

The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said.

But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court.

Manheim said the Obama Administration, which is in the midst of trying to pass a federal immigration reform law, would likely rely on private litigants to challenge the controversial Arizona law.

Challenging the law directly “might create a political conflict” for the administration, he said.

If private litigants sue Arizona over the new law, the Justice Department also could file a so-called friend-of-the-court brief in support of the challenge, he said.
===

see also such sites as....

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizona-immigration-law.html

The statute also has an anti-solicitation of workers (often called day laborers) provision of the type that has been held unconstitutional under the First Amendment, see Town of Herndon v. Thomas, MI-2007-644 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 29, 2007) Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 475 F. Supp. 2d 952, 962 (C.D. Cal. 2006).


http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10538683
utah att'y gen., on the law.
==

postscript:

given the high probability the thing will perish, mebbe da Youjul Yahoos better start protectin' our cuntry with a few gud lynchins.
self defense, yanno, 'n all that. real murkins need not put up wit dis stuff.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

American immigration laws prohibit illegal entry, so Arizona is enforcing Federal Law rather than violating it. There is no conflict between Federal and Arizona Law so far as the wetbacks being in America illegally.

What you Usual Suspects hate is cops demanding ID when they stop a pickup filled with wetbacks. And when they see a Ford F150 packed with 6 mexicans packed in the front seat, they can pull them over.

 

[Pure]

yep, 'n iff'n the commie lawyers knock down the thing, a gud lynchin of a few o' dem wetbacks'll set things right!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

You see what happens? You have no argument when the wetbacks violate Federal Law and Arizona attempts to enforce it. The game is up, buckaroo.

If I make whisky in this state I need state & federal permits to do it. If the Feds dont wanna enforce their laws they cant stop the states from enforcing the law.

 

[CrazyCatGuy]

I don't think anyone's opposing enforcing such laws, but only how it's done: It's vastly different (legally, at least) when police searches someone's home with or without a judge issued warrant. The person inside the house may be guilty of some crime or another, but without a warrant, the point (legally) is moot. This law that Arizona just passed seems to be removing the "warrant" part of the analogy, and just allow the police to ask anyone for their paper based only on "suspicion" without the need to confirm with anyone else. I think this is the point that people have a problem with.

 

[Pure]

i see no one here bothers to read the abundant material on the AZ law. or the law itself. text is at:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

here are two points of constitutional interest:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizona-immigration-law.html

The new Arizona law allows state officials to inquire into the immigration status of any person based upon "reasonable suspicion":

A. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.

The statute also prohibits localities from adopting any policies that allow less than full enforcement of the immigration laws, thus prohibiting so-called sanctuary provisions.

B.Additionally, section 13-1509 provides that a person is guilty of the crime of trespassing if the person is both: "present on any public or private land in this state" and in violation of federal immigration statutes.


Regarding A., which speaks of 'reasonable suspicion'-- what are the grounds for 'reasonable suspicion' that a person is here [in US] illegally? [leaving aside actually seeing them crossing the border or running north, from just inside it]. straw hat? brown skin? speeding?

Regarding B. AZ proposes a penalty, in effect, for violating a federal law. To use an analogy, suppose Arizona passed a law--Trespassing-by-Federal-Income-Tax-Evaders' Law-- specifying that if the AZ cops find you on public land, AND you are in default of your federal income tax, you are liable to a fine--payable to AZ!-- of $100.

We are NOT dealing with state 'enforcement' of a federal law. The attempt is to create a fresh crime [trespasssing] on top of the federal infraction [entering illegally].

additionally, the federal concept of 'aggravated felony' is itself dubious in some respects, since it may include misdemeanors.

see: "aggravated felonies and deportation"

http://ourcuriousimmigrationlaws.blogspot.com/2010/03/minor-misdemeanor-may-be-aggravated.html

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't think anyone's opposing enforcing such laws, but only how it's done: It's vastly different (legally, at least) when police searches someone's home with or without a judge issued warrant. The person inside the house may be guilty of some crime or another, but without a warrant, the point (legally) is moot. This law that Arizona just passed seems to be removing the "warrant" part of the analogy, and just allow the police to ask anyone for their paper based only on "suspicion" without the need to confirm with anyone else. I think this is the point that people have a problem with.

The cops always need probable cause to stop you; this doesnt guarantee that they have PC but it does mean they need a good line to hand to the judge. Warrantless searches arent new; cops can come in your home if they say they heard signs of distress or appeals for help. They can enter your home to see your kids or come in if they think there's akid in the home.

There are umptine ways to get around a warrant.

The Fish & Game people used to call me to find ways around warrants. I always suggested they make a child abuse report then go in the home to look for wild animals.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

Probable Cause is reasonable suspicion. If you stop a pickup with 6 Mexicans, ask for ID and they got none, you have PC. If the truck has Mexican plates, you got PC.

The Big O is in a double bind. He cant interfere in the enforcement of laws, and he cant ask the states to amend the Constitution to allow illegal entry. All he (and you) can do is whoop about racists.

 

[CrazyCatGuy]

The cops always need probable cause to stop you; this doesnt guarantee that they have PC but it does mean they need a good line to hand to the judge. Warrantless searches arent new; cops can come in your home if they say they heard signs of distress or appeals for help. They can enter your home to see your kids or come in if they think there's akid in the home.

There are umptine ways to get around a warrant.

The Fish & Game people used to call me to find ways around warrants. I always suggested they make a child abuse report then go in the home to look for wild animals.

Sure police can ask to enter, or even forcefully enter if they believe they hear signs of distress or appeals for help, but if they seize anything incriminating from your home, the evidence would be not admissible in a court.

In the fish and game scenario, I'd imagine if the person had no children, the falsified child abuse report probably wouldn't work, and would get the case thrown out?

But back on topic of the Arizona law, the fact that all that's required for a police to ask to see papers is "reasonable suspicion", there can be a pretty broad interpretation of what "reasonable suspicion" is. Sure you can say that a truck with 6 Hispanic guys in it is suspicious, and I would agree.
But what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" is different for everyone, and on the other end of the "suspiciousness-spectrum", probably even a Hispanic guy speaking Spanish is enough to pass for someone's measure of "reasonable suspicion". Since there is seemingly nothing in place to prevent potential abuse of power, this arbitrary standard of "reasonable suspicion" is a very legitimate point of contention in this debate.

 

[Liar]

Probable Cause is reasonable suspicion. If you stop a pickup with 6 Mexicans, ask for ID and they got none, you have PC. If the truck has Mexican plates, you got PC.

That be ass-backards, since you need PC to ask. No?

 

[MzDeviancy]

i've watched ami for several years....

has there ever been a measure (law etc) providing that the gov't may detain, arrest, or torture you, on more or less arbitrary grounds, which amicus opposed?

I think that's because it's usually legislation pertaining to detaining/arresting/torture people of non-white, non-Christian background, which he's A-okay with.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sure police can ask to enter, or even forcefully enter if they believe they hear signs of distress or appeals for help, but if they seize anything incriminating from your home, the evidence would be not admissible in a court.

In the fish and game scenario, I'd imagine if the person had no children, the falsified child abuse report probably wouldn't work, and would get the case thrown out?

But back on topic of the Arizona law, the fact that all that's required for a police to ask to see papers is "reasonable suspicion", there can be a pretty broad interpretation of what "reasonable suspicion" is. Sure you can say that a truck with 6 Hispanic guys in it is suspicious, and I would agree.
But what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" is different for everyone, and on the other end of the "suspiciousness-spectrum", probably even a Hispanic guy speaking Spanish is enough to pass for someone's measure of "reasonable suspicion". Since there is seemingly nothing in place to prevent potential abuse of power, this arbitrary standard of "reasonable suspicion" is a very legitimate point of contention in this debate.

Reasonable has to be linked to a logical chain of thought. You cant offer a tip from ET or a usual suspect as a logical link.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

I expect the cops will set up roadblocks as they do safety checks and DUI checks. And the wetbacks will get caught in the net. There are plenty of ways to fuck your team.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That be ass-backards, since you need PC to ask. No?

Nope...you are required to produce an ID whenever a police officer asks for one , no PC required. Although most are too busy with real police business, like sucking down donuts or CiCi's Pizza, to ask everyone they meet for an ID.

 

[Liar]

Nope...you are required to produce an ID whenever a police officer asks for one , no PC required. Although most are too busy with real police business, like sucking down donuts or CiCi's Pizza, to ask everyone they meet for an ID.

I thought the part of the law that people are up in arms about was that police can, perhaps even must, demand papers from someone they think might be an illegal.

And some people here assured me that the lefties being up in arms are being hysterical, the police can only ask for papers if they have probable cause.

Which is it? Me be confuzzled.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

The 14th Amendment of our Constitution has an equal protection clause that means the law applies to all, but our laws include something called STATUS OFFENCES. Kids cant consume alcohol or tobacco or drive before 16, before 16 kids must attend school.

Mexicans arent citizens so their status is different from citizens. To get around the citizenship obstacle cops will check Mexicans just like they check ragheads...form a line and check all. Or pull them over if they see too many heads inside the cab. No tag light will be enough, though.

People need to relax cuz the cops will find ways to legally stop Mexicans to check ID.