Judge blocks most controversial parts of AZ SB1070 law

[Boris Godunov]

Boris, I find life in general, and Apolyton in specific, to be far more relaxing and hypertension-reducing with our fine Canadian Jedi friend on ignore.

I'm close to doing so, not because it causes me any particular stress, but rather because it's just a boring waste of my time. The time I spend showing how woefully ignorant or dishonest he is would be time better spent doing something else, like eating razor blades.

[Boris Godunov]

JUDGE: I find this law violates the U.S. Constitution and therefore--

BEN KENOBI: Your honor, wait! I've reason to believe some people who disagree with the law actually want to have open borders so immigrants can flood into the country, steal jobs, cause untold damage via traffic accidents and even steal women away from real Americans with their suave Latin ways!

JUDGE: Oh, well then! Why didn't anyone say so? CASE DISMISSED!

[Ben Kenobi]

Racial profiling in stops is a well-documented issue that the U.S. Dept. of Justice highlighted in the late 1990s as a problem.

Wow. That so answers the question as to what exactly *is* racial profiling. Ok. we get it that it's a problem, but what *is* it?

Am I not being clear enough in these questions, Boris. You don't seem to be understanding what I am asking.

People have even defended the practice (On the same stupid logic you use to claim that illegals are "more likely" to commit traffic violations). Over 20 states passed explicit laws to ban it. So I don't think it needs to be pointed out that racial profiling happens.

How does the statement, illegal immigrants are more likely to commit traffic violations, consist of racial profiling? Illegal immigrants are not a race. Or is there a new race of 'illegal'?

First, no, I'm not saying cops are bigots, racists, etc. They can be, just like anyone else, sure.

Then I have no problem trusting them to their reasonable judgement just as they do with traffic stops. If they have the authority to use their reasonable judgment to stop people to check their driver's license and registration, then they should also be able to ask for their passport.

Seeing their license, no. Seeing their "papers," yes. State police aren't supposed to be the Stasi.

So I shouldn't be expected to keep my passport on hand when I travel to the US?

Being stopped for speeding does not give police the right to search you or your vehicle

Asking for your passprot is not the same as searching your vehicle.

Your definition of "reasonable suspicion" is absurd, then. How is having an out-of-state license plate in any way indicative a person has even committed a crime, much less is an illegal?

How is not having a license plate at all indicative that the driver might be an illegal?

If someone has an invalid license, as has been said already, then they can be arrested for driving without a valid license.

Why shouldn't the police officer also confirm the immigration status of an unknown driver who was arrested without a valid license?

So no, those all fail to meet the threshhold of probable cause that the person is and illegal immigrant.

In your eyes, is there anything that would reach the threshold?

and your proof of this is

Most americans have drivers licenses. Those who don't have a license are more likely to commit traffic violations either because they do not understand the signs, they do not know the area or they have never actually passed a driver's exam.

This isn't a particularly diffiicult argument.

This is profiling, by the way, which I thought you said cops don't do...

Never said this. Pulling someone over because they hit a lamppost isn't profiling. It's called due diligence. Asking for the immigration status of said driver when they fail to produce a license and appear to be sober, and don't appear anywhere in your records, is just plain common sense.

But local officials can't detain someone for not being able to prove their citizenship to them

That's not my argument either. My argument is that the local authorities do have the authority to turn them over to immigration and customs enforcement.

[Ben Kenobi]

Law as worded?" I am hoping you meant to say that Federal Law ought to be enforced by the Federal Government, not that the Federal Government ought to be enforcing the Arizona law, which would be stupid.

Yes, the federal law as worded.

Anymore bobs and weaves?

[Caligastia]

No, the AZ law was passed because of right wing anti-illegal hysteria that was whipped up for political purposes.

Ah, so there are no real problems caused by illegal immigration in Arizona. Good to know.

[giblets]

When a cop pulls someone over, why stop at checking their immigration status? They should go to the person's house and search it for drugs. Frequently searching people's homes without probable cause would greatly improve enforcement.

[BlackCat]

When a cop pulls someone over, why stop at checking their immigration status? They should go to the person's house and search it for drugs. Frequently searching people's homes without probable cause would greatly improve enforcement.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the police on regular basis searched housings ? without warning, of course. Bet that it will make Ben happy.

[flash9286]

While I'm amused at your giddyness for people having their rights violated, it doesn't change the fact that state officials don't have the authority to enforce federal immigration statutes, period.

It is a little more complicated than that. For example, take Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983) (reversed on other grounds):

The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized. Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). Therefore, federal regulation of a particular field should not be presumed to preempt state enforcement activity “in the absence of persuasive reasons-either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained.” De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356, 96 S.Ct. 933, 936, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976) (quoting Florida Avocado Growers, 373 U.S. at 142, 83 S.Ct. at 1217).

[4] Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if “the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion.”

The City's claim of authority is limited. It asserts only the power to enforce the criminal provisions of the federal immigration laws. There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes-the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted.

The plaintiffs contend the structure of the Immigration and Naturalization Act evidences an intent to preclude local enforcement of the Act's criminal provisions. To conclude preclusion was the legislative intent, we would have to find that “complete ouster of state power ... was ‘the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ ” De Canas, 424 U.S. at 357, 96 S.Ct. at 937 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). No such intent is manifested in the Act.

[5] Plaintiffs correctly assert that an intent to preclude local enforcement may be inferred where the system of federal regulation is so pervasive that no opportunity for state activity remains. Id. We assume that the civil provisions of the Act regulating*475 authorized entry, length of stay, residence status, and deportation, constitute such a pervasive regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration. However, this case does not concern that broad scheme, but only a narrow and distinct element of it-the regulation of criminal immigration activity by aliens. The statutes relating to that element are few in number and relatively simple in their terms. They are not, and could not be, supported by a complex administrative structure. It therefore cannot be inferred that the federal government has occupied the field of criminal immigration enforcement.

Plaintiffs also perceive an implication of preclusion in the specific statutes regulating criminal immigration activities, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, and 1326. Their argument is based on section 1324(c), which expressly authorizes local police to enforce the prohibitions against transporting and harboring certain aliens:

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

(Emphasis added.) Neither section 1325, which prohibits unauthorized entry, nor section 1326, which prohibits reentry by a previously deported alien, contains an express authorization of local enforcement. Plaintiffs therefore infer that Congress intended to withhold enforcement authority as to sections 1325 and 1326.

This inference is defeated by the legislative history of the Act. That history was carefully reviewed by the California Court of Appeal in People v. Barajas, 81 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004-07, 147 Cal.Rptr. 195, 198-99 (1978), and we agree with its conclusions.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act was considered by the second session of the 82nd Congress. The version of section 1324 passed by the House made no reference to arrest authority. Id., 81 Cal.App.3d at 1006, 147 Cal.Rptr. at 198. The version of section 1324 passed by the Senate authorized enforcement by “all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.” Conf.Rep. No. 1505, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1952 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1358, 1360, 1361. As the Barajas court concluded, the clear implication of that version of the statute was that the enforcement of section 1324 was limited, but that of sections 1325 and 1326 was not. As a compromise, however, the conferees agreed to adopt an amendment to section 1324(c) proposed by the House. According to the Conference Report, the amendment “struck out the words ‘of the United States,’ so that other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws would have authority to make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the act.” Id. The amendment thus removed the limitations on enforcement authority in section 1324(c). This expansion of authority cannot be read as an implied limitation of sections 1325 and 1326. Instead, it implicitly made the enforcement authority as to all three statutes identical.

We therefore hold that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Act. We must now consider whether state law grants Peoria police the affirmative authority to make arrests under those statutes. See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. at 37, 83 S.Ct. at 1631.

Also see Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 991 F.Supp. 895 (N.D.Ohio 1997).

[Zevico]

No, but she did uphold the prohibition on roaming mariachi bands accosting you at the table of your favorite Mexican restaurant.

I say to you now: this will not stand. This aggression will not stand.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'd like to point out that there has to be, I believe, two non-racial factor in the arrest, at which point the suspect is turned over to the immigration authorities should they fail an immigration check. They check the immigration status with the federal immigration service who are legally required to provide residency status of any state detainee.

but IANAL

[Wezil]

Anymore bobs and weaves?

Yeah Ben, you've really got him on the ropes.

[Guynemer]

This aggression will not stand.

...man.

[onodera]

Wait, how can an illegal immigrant have a US driver's license?

[Hauldren Collider]

They could have a Mexican driver's license or Canadian driver's license, which is valid on a temporary basis if you're traveling through the country with a visa. Most illegal immigrants arrive legally and stay illegally.

[onodera]

They could have a Mexican driver's license or Canadian driver's license, which is valid on a temporary basis if you're traveling through the country with a visa. Most illegal immigrants arrive legally and stay illegally.

And the police in the US cannot check the legal status of an obvious immigrant? Our countries are really different. Here it's the primary source of income for corrupt cops.