Arizona Senate Bill 1070

[Darius871]

Yes legals will be affected by this law if they get a ticket. Which has been my point all along.

My first impression is that this thread suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of what's meant by "reasonable suspicion," which is a clear reference to about 42 years of 4th Amendment jurisprudence that would almost certainly forbid pulling someone over for looking like an illegal tends to look, which means cops are only going to be able to pull over vehicles for articulable suspicion of some other offense (e.g. speeding, ignoring signals, busted taillight, etc.), whether someone later calls it "pretext" or not. Even supposing your proposition that a legal Hispanic is less likely to get a "warning" than a honkie in his shoes, if a guy who was speeding gets pulled over for speeding and then is ticketed for speeding, what's the problem?

[Darius871]

I asked an honest question.

How should immigration, in your opinion, be enforced?

Maybe pursuant to the plenary power over it granted to the federal government by the plain text of the Constitution? If you don't like the way they're handling it, feel free to vote accordingly. That has nothing to do with the State of Arizona.

[rah]

My first impression is that this thread suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of what's meant by "reasonable suspicion," which is a clear reference to about 42 years of 4th Amendment jurisprudence that would almost certainly forbid pulling someone over for looking like an illegal tends to look, which means cops are only going to be able to pull over vehicles for articulable suspicion of some other offense (e.g. speeding, ignoring signals, busted taillight, etc.), whether someone later calls it "pretext" or not. Even supposing your proposition that a legal Hispanic is less likely to get a "warning" than a honkie in his shoes, if a guy who was speeding gets pulled over for speeding and then is ticketed for speeding, what's the problem?

Please go back to my original posts. Again assume 2 people driving 2 miles over the speed limit. In most cases, even though a policeman could legitimately pull over both drivers, if he pull over just the black or hispanic driver that's A PROBLEM TO ME. There has been a lot of documentation that this actually happens. Thanks to lawsuits the problem has been reduced but I believe this law might reverse the reduction. JUST MY OPINION.

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe pursuant to the plenary power over it granted to the federal government by the plain text of the Constitution? If you don't like the way they're handling it, feel free to vote accordingly. That has nothing to do with the State of Arizona.

Thanks for your answer. I personally approve of what Arizona is doing. There's nothing there as a Canadian which would exempt me from the same scrutiny as someone from Mexico.

[Barnabas]

The only way to control illegal immigration is to control illegal immigration. The mexican-american fronteer isn't that big, and you have the best technology and army in the world. If you don't control it, it is because neither republicans nor democrats have wanted to.

I have an illegal immigrant cousin living in the USA, she told me she isnt very worried even if Texas were to copy Arizona because she is an ethnic german and looks totally waspy. Even if her english is much worse than mine.

[Darius871]

Maybe pursuant to the plenary power over it granted to the federal government by the plain text of the Constitution? If you don't like the way they're handling it, feel free to vote accordingly. That has nothing to do with the State of Arizona.

Thanks for your answer. I personally approve of what Arizona is doing.

Forgive me, I should have added "field-preempting" just after "plenary." As in the state won't be allowed on this playground.

[DinoDoc]

There are still a few things the State can do in the sandbox. Mandating the use of E-Verify for one and moving against any sanctuary cities that happen to be in the state. I also fail to see how this law costitutes an infringement on Federal powers.

[Darius871]

I also fail to see how this law costitutes an infringement on Federal powers.

You're confusing "conflict" preemption with the "field" preemption I referred to; obviously it doesn't conflict with federal law to assist in its enforcement, but the challengers' argument will no doubt be that federal role in immigration law is, by both constitutional text and actual practice, "so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it" and/or a "field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject," as opposed to some field in which the states have traditionally had a predominant role (e.g. the police power, providing for the general welfare, enforcing contracts, etc.). Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association was just the start of a long line of cases reiterating time and time again that contradiction is not a prerequisite to preemption.

[Darius871]

What concerns me more are the basic logistics of enforcing this law: suppose the county Sheriff's deputies raid a sweatshop where illegals are known to work, card every employee at the door, and find a dozen illegals. WTF are they supposed to do with them?

The language quoted in the OP doesn't appear to independently criminalize and provide for the arrest of illegals discovered, let alone provide for their deportation or incarceration. Unless I'm missing something I can only conclude that their plan is to detain the illegals until such time as they're turned over to ICE, but who says ICE has to take them? What if they exercise their discretion not to take them? Are they cut loose?


EDIT: scratch that, portions outside that quote throw in a brief arrest and a "fine." Good luck collecting that money...

[DinoDoc]

I'd like to see the news reports afterwards if ICE refuses them.

[Darius871]

I'd like to see the news reports afterwards if ICE refuses them.

Looking at the full text it appears that, aside from making immigration status an aggravating factor for independent crimes like drug/gun possession, they basically intend to fine on the first offense and then incarcerate for a class 4 felony on the second offense (or on a post-federal-deportation first offense as the case may be). It then provides that after that conviction and punishment, the illegal "shall be transferred immediately to the custody of [ICE] or [CBP]," leaving no discretion on the state officials' part. It also provides that state officials "may" make that transfer even prior to conviction, which I'm guessing would happen a lot just to save the expense of giving three hots and a cot through prosecution.

If they really make a concerted effort to enforce this, we're talking about busloads and busloads of bodies essentially being dropped at Uncle Sam's doorstep even though the hapless ICE/CBP agents in the area probably won't have the manpower, bunk space, or other resources to deal with the sudden influx absent a huge boost in funding that might not even be authorized without congressional appropriation. I think it could be at least temporarily defensible in the media spin to turn away some (but not all) at the door for that sheer lack of resources. That endgame gets us right to why the bill is far more about sending a strong message to Washington in an election year than it is about actually removing illegals from the state.

[Japher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

[Patroklos]

I agree that the "lawful contact" is the problem. It appears the intention was to check people already arrested/detained for other crimes. However, lawful contact could simply mean any contact a police officer has with a citizen while on duty if read liberally.

[Patroklos]

And in general 75% of the population is white, so these number show that minorities are arrested in a higher % then they are represented in the population. But since there are other factors, this doesn't really mean much to me.

Thats irrelevant in this case unless you can show that minorities commit crimes exactly in proportion to their population. Law enforcement's job is not to apply the rules according to racial percentages, but rather based on who is breaking the law.

You can say racism is the reasons minorities commit more crimes (legacy poverty or whatever) if that is indeed the case, but it is utterly irrelevant to law enforcement.

[rah]

That's why I said there are other factors.
Even when you look at the more judgmental type traffic stops, like looking for valid license registration, where the percentage of minority stops is even more out of line, the case can be made that violations are higher (due to poverty and whatever).
Thankfully now that a lot of states mandate tracking of demographics on all police stops, the number of DWB violations in the vanilla villages is starting to drop. And that IS relevant to law enforcement.