Arizona Senate Bill 1070

[The Mad Monk]

I've heard that driving without a valid license may constitute "reasonable suspicion".

[Heraclitus]

Says who?

Since you're good at math you must be Asian, don't worry racial profiling works to your advantage since police officers will stop you less frequently than White people.

[DinoDoc]

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

...
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are probably my favorite poster on this site.

I still won't have sex with you.

[Wiglaf]

But if you moved to Arizona all I'd need is reasonable suspicion to pick you up

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is exactly the reason why I haven't moved to Arizona.

[Darius871]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html

That law distinguishably doesn't directly regulate immigration status and its consequences (all that the Constitution explicitly addresses) and only regulates citizens' own hiring choices, which only goes so far as to perhaps indirectly discourage some immigrants from staying in the state. The difference between that and criminalizing an immigrant's own status should be obvious. See Hines v. Davidowitz for what happens when a state messes with status itself and it's consequences (and that was only an "obstacle" preemption case, not the even broader "field" preemption that the Supreme Court has yet to - but probably will - apply to immigration).

That said, I've said earlier in the thread that I do think the mere stops and record checks would definitely not be covered by obstacle preemption because they merely enforce existing federal law, and this right-leaning court would be highly likely to find create some sort of "mere enforcement exception" to field preemption, leaving that portion of the bill intact pursuant to the severability provisions in Section 11. It's the outright criminalization that probably won't stand, and it's even likely that the drafters contemplated from the get tho that it was a "throwaway" giving the courts an excuse to keep the more important record checks and consequent deportations intact.

[Hauldren Collider]

So, Darius, can you clarify, does this mean that in order to guarantee he is not arrested, a legal immigrant must carry his documents with him at all times?

And what if the person in question is an undocumented citizen?

[Darius871]

So, Darius, can you clarify, does this mean that in order to guarantee he is not arrested, a legal immigrant must carry his documents with him at all times?

And what if the person in question is an undocumented citizen?

As I said somewhere earlier, (1) the plain text of the bill does not at any point suggest in any way shape or form that anyone "must" have documentation when approached by police, and (2) the fact that it requires an officer's "reasonable suspicion" as to illegal status (which justifies only questioning) elevate into "probable cause" before he is authorized to make an arrest would preclude outright arrests for the sole reason of failing to have documentation on one's person at the particular moment. I admit that #2 isn't yet the law until the state and federal courts actually hash it out in practice, but I'm confident based on overall probable-cause jurisprudence up to this point that #2 would be the result, and it would take (A) some actual inculpatory statement by the subject, (B) some actual tip by a reliable third party, or (C) an adverse 1373(c) check to reach the level of probable cause. Just neglecting to have all pertinent documentation on-hand - like 99.9999% of innocent people - is not probable cause, any more than having a plastic bag in your lunchbox is probable cause to believe guilt of drug distribution, having a crowbar in your garage is probable cause to believe guilt of possession of burglary tools, having a condom in your wallet is probable cause to believe guilt of statutory rape, or having a box-cutter in your toolbox is probable cause of terrorist conspiracy. It's just not enough. But don't let any of that get in the way of talking heads' predictable scaremongering "must have papers" rhetoric.

In any event, as I've also said before, I think that an indisputably-probable-cause-creating adverse 1373(c) check would exist in many if not most cases and that alone would achieve the bill's basic goal of diminishing the local illegal population. Discouragement of hiring would indirectly drive much of that population out of the state as well (which apparently is already happening: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6442729.shtml).

[Hauldren Collider]

Thanks Darius, that was very helpful . I think I'll pass this along to my dad, he seems to think it mandates that you carry papers.

[Drake Tungsten]

Kaus also commented on Arizona's controversial new law:

"I'm not for mass deportations, or for rooting out and displacing people who are minding their own business 'living in the shadows.' But Arizonans have been sorely tested by wave after wave of illegal immigration, in violation of federal law, which has brought with it unprecedented levels of violence to the state.

The new law may turn out to be a reasonable response to the problem. It doesn't say police can stop anyone they "suspect" of being an illegal. The police have to have some other legitimate reason for making contact. This gives them the power to ask for a driver's license or other evidence of legality.

There is a potential for abuse. But let's give it a chance and see how it works. If I thought it would lead to mass sweeps to check the 'papers' of brown-skinned people walking down the street, I would oppose it. The law on its face precludes that. If it happens in practice, it should be stopped. But until it does we should calm down and see if the law is abused or not."

"If Obama and the national Democrats don't like Arizona's response, they should stop holding effective federal enforcement of immigration laws hostage to the amnesty they keep dangling in front of Latino voters."

http://kaus.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/news/newsitem.php?section=PRS&id=8407&showcat=2&seq=1

Mickey Kaus for Senate

[DaShi]

Wouldn't public policy targeted toward reducing crime overall be more effective? It seems like illegal immigration might just be a scapegoat for bigger problems in Arizona.

[Drake Tungsten]

Given that the increase in violent crime in Arizona is driven largely by the activities of Mexican drug cartels, calling for better border enforcement seems like a logical response.

[HalfLotus]

I don't get how the political and media favor toward illegal immigrants is so strong.

National and Arizona state polls show strong citizen support for better enforcement of existing immigration laws, but both the media and national political figures lack even a modicum of spine when it comes to addressing the issue.

I sympathize with Mexicans looking for work and a better life. I've made some great illegal latino friends, nothing against them. However, last figure I saw put the cost of illegal immigrants on infrastructure, etc. at $1 trillion plus annually. It's a problem.

[Hauldren Collider]

2 step solution:
1. End quotas. Then only criminals will sneak across the border.
2. Patrol the border and crack down on drug cartels. This will cut back on violence and reduce the incentives to leave Mexico.