Legal Showdown - Arizona's Immigration Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
69,284
Reaction score
143
Time's ticking... just the matter of time till Supreme Court strikes it down as blatantly unconstitutional and Department of Justice completes its investigation on Arizona officials like Sheriff Joe Arpaio for violation of civil rights, abuse of power, etc.

Once the immigration law gets struck down - I call for Governor Jan Brewer's resignation because she knowingly and willfully signed an illegal law. Looking at her political background - she is clearly unfit for duty. That's why former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (a seasoned public servant) was appalled at this.

This thread is limited to discussion on the legality of this Arizona's immigration law. Any other matter not relating to legal discussion - you can go ahead and make a thread about it. :ty:
 
update -

Arizona governor signs changes into immigration law
(CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that makes changes to a controversial new state immigration law, saying the changes should ease concerns about racial profiling.

"These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling," Brewer said in a statement after the signing. "These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

But opponents challenged that assertion in the run-up to Brewer's signing of the changes into law on Friday.

"It doesn't deter anything," said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the Arizona ACLU. "It's not a serious hurdle."

Pochoda said that law enforcement officers -- under strong pressure to find and remove illegal immigrants -- could still identify people by race and then look for a minor infraction as an excuse to investigate them.

He noted that the authors of the immigration law, passed April 23, also backed the changes to it.

The new Arizona law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they are in the United States illegally.

Under the law, police would be able to detain an individual based merely on the suspicion that he or she entered the country illegally. But one of the changes -- which had been adopted by state lawmakers Thursday night -- says police could stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.

An officer could only ask about an immigrant's legal status, for example, while investigating that person for speeding, loitering or some other offense.

The new law also makes it a state crime to live in or travel through Arizona illegally. And it targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin told CNN that the changes to the bill are significant, insofar as they help remove a "huge disincentive for victims and witnesses to cooperate with the police."

Under the original version of the law, he said, police officers would have been obligated to arrest a suspected illegal immigrant who approached them after being victimized. That would not be the case under the revised law.

Arizona's law originally said that the attorney general or a county attorney cannot investigate complaints based "solely" on factors such as a person's race, color or national origin. The changes enacted Friday remove the word "solely" to emphasize that prosecutors must have some reason other than an individual's race or national origin to investigate.

But Chin dismissed the significance of that change. Both the federal and state constitutions make it clear that you can "never stop someone exclusively on account of race," he said.

Racial profiling would still occur, he said. "It's always 'race plus' in these situations. ... The law still allows the consideration of race as a factor."

Defenders of the law -- angry over the charges of racism permeating the debate -- say it is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to move into in the state.

"Illegal is illegal," Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the controversial statute's primary sponsor, told CNN Friday. "Illegal's not a race, it's a crime. ... And in Arizona, we're going to enforce" the law.

Pearce accused President Barack Obama, a critic of the measure, of "aiding and abetting criminal activity, inciting criminal activity, inciting violence, and [violating his] oath of office to secure this border, enforce these laws and defend the American people."

Some analysts said that Arizona was compelled to adopt the amendments in reaction to a growing movement among civil rights activists and others to launch an economic boycott of the state. On Friday, two San Francisco, California, officials wrote a three-page letter to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to ask that the 2011 All-Star Game be moved from Phoenix, Arizona, if the law is not repealed.

The overall law has drawn sharp scrutiny from the Justice Department, at least two lawsuits and condemnation from the Mexican government and other Latin American nations. Several prominent entertainers also have spoken out against the measure.

An April 27-28 nationwide Gallup poll, however, found that 51 percent of Americans favor the Arizona law, while only 39 percent oppose it.

The changes to the law are not sufficient and will do little to positively affect daily law enforcement in Arizona, argued Clarissa Martinez De Castro of the National Council of La Raza, a major Latino civil rights organization.

"Even right now, without this law, we know that the practice on the streets is different," she told CNN. "The [current] practice doesn't reflect what the law is. And if the governor is saying that racial profiling is not going to be tolerated, why has it been tolerated so far?"

About 500,000 unauthorized immigrants were believed to live in Arizona in 2008, and 11.9 million nationwide, up from 3.5 million nationwide in 1990, according to a Pew Hispanic Center report published in 2009.

Protests against the Arizona law are scheduled Saturday in at least 21 states, the District of Columbia and two Canadian provinces. In all, protests are planned for 47 cities.

The changes to the law will take effect along with the rest of the statute in 90 days.

"It goes back to the federal government," Martinez told CNN. "If they abdicate their responsibility, they leave state and local governments to grapple with this issue, and the only thing that happens is that we create greater chaos. ... This is just not the way forward."

interesting.... so Arizona made some changes... sounds like they knew it will get struck down as unconstitutional and they're doing everything they can to make it sound like it's in compliant with the Constitution and federal law.

Nice try but it won't fly :nono:
 
Wirelessly posted

And still does nothing to oust the underground except for labour trafficking.
 
since Arizona Governor Brewer clearly stated that racial profiling is illegal and that she has issued an executive order requiring police officers to get training without using racial profiling....

why don't we get an opinion from somebody who actually knows how it works in reality.... something that Governor Brewer is in out of touch with.

Arizona police officer sues over immigration law
(CNN) -- A police officer in Tucson, Arizona, asks that local law enforcement be exempt from enforcing the state's new immigration law in a lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday.

Officer Martin H. Escobar claims in the suit that the law will "seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes."

He also says there are no "race-neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States," including a person's proximity to the Mexican border, linguistic characteristics and capabilities, skin color, clothing worn or the type of vehicle driven.

The law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, allows police to ask anyone for proof of legal U.S. residency. Brewer and others who support the law have said it does not involve racial profiling or any other illegal acts.

"Racial profiling is illegal," Brewer said after signing the bill. "It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona."

Read the complaint (PDF)

But Escobar's suit says the law "is the product of racial bias aimed specifically at Hispanics" and places every Hispanic within the state at risk of losing his or her constitutional rights.

Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, the city of Tucson and Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall are named in the suit.

Escobar asks that local law enforcement be exempt "from engaging any immigration stops, questioning, detention, citing or any law enforcement activity reserved to the federal government."

Escobar, 45, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Mexico and immigrated with his parents when he was 5 years old, attorney Richard M. Martinez said.

Tucson Police Department spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco declined to comment on the case because city policies prevent employees from discussing pending litigation. But he said Escobar has worked for the department since 1995 and patrols Tucson's south side.

Martinez said his client has spent years working to break down barriers between the Police Department and the predominantly Hispanic community.

"All this law does is put the barrier back up. ... It takes away trust and the rapport and relationships," he said Thursday.

Spokespeople for Brewer and Goddard did not return requests for comment.

this officer clearly knows what's he talking about. This is a seasoned cop living in Tuscon with a high density of illegal immigrants and he knows it inside out. He's seen it all.
 
Since Arizona repeatedly claimed that the federal government's poor effort to combat with illegal immigration is causing a huge burden on Arizona - high crime rates.

let's see if the claim is misleading or not.

Crime stats test rationale behind Arizona immigration law
(CNN) -- High levels of illegal immigration and crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants are among the key rationales cited by some supporters of a tough new immigration law in Arizona.

"Border violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said at the signing of the controversial bill, SB 1070. "There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of the drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life."

Yet, a look at statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and the FBI indicate that both the number of illegal crossers and violent crime in general have actually decreased in the past several years.

According to FBI statistics, violent crimes reported in Arizona dropped by nearly 1,500 reported incidents between 2005 and 2008. Reported property crimes also fell, from about 287,000 reported incidents to 279,000 in the same period. These decreases are accentuated by the fact that Arizona's population grew by 600,000 between 2005 and 2008.

According to the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Institute, proponents of the bill "overlook two salient points: Crime rates have already been falling in Arizona for years despite the presence of unauthorized immigrants, and a century's worth of research has demonstrated that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born."

Backers of the bill maintain that crime is a key reason for the necessity of the tough immigration law.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce this week told CNN's Tony Harris that half the murders in Phoenix are committed by unauthorized immigrants and that the city is the second in the world in kidnappings.

A CNN Fact Check found that the senator's claim about the murders in Phoenix cannot be proven, but he did have police statistics to back up his claims of the city's high number of kidnappings, although its exact standing in the world is not clear.

In Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has long been an advocate of tough measures against illegal immigration. His officers already check the immigration status of people they detain for other crimes, he said.

"We've been doing it for a long time, but this [law] gives us just a little more authority," Arpaio told CNN.

One way that Arpaio says he measures his success is that he hears that immigrants who entered the country illegally are leaving his county.

"It's a good indicator," he said.

Statewide illegal immigration trends are harder to gauge.

One aspect of it is the number of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants made by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. Since a peak in 2000 of more than 600,000 illegal crossers apprehended, the number fell to 241,000 in 2009, Tucson Sector Public Affairs Officer Mario Escalante told CNN.

"We've seen a steady decline," he said.

Intelligence-driven operations have increased the effectiveness of the Border Patrol's efforts, he added.


Meanwhile, the cartel violence that has gripped Mexico for the most part has remained there, he said.


Human and drug smugglers are being "more aggressive because we're being successful," Escalante said, "But we've been lucky not to see that type of [violence] spill over here."

It is unfortunate that Arizona responded to this problem with wrong approach and covert racism that obscured their logical thinking - it's not the illegal immigration that is contributing to huge problem in our society and country.... it's our Drug War policy. Steinhauer's post is the crystal-clear proof of it.

It is apparent that this Arizona's immigration law is grossly misguided and illegal.
 
Posters have said that illegals do not have civil rights in America. Let's see.....

cases at Supreme Court
Yick Wo v. Hopkins - 1886
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."

Wong Wing v. U.S. - 1896
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe - 1982 - a violation of 14th Amendment
lyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State.

14th Amendment
Section 1. 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.
The argument was said that this Section 1 is limited to U.S. citizens but the Supreme Court has rejected that argument and stated that it applies to any person regardless of age, gender, nationality, citizenship/immigration status, etc.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3 - deleted. not pertinent to this issue.

Section 4 - deleted. not pertinent to this issue.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

and the Founding Fathers' belief
"We the People of the United States" - Supreme Court has consistently ruled that "We the People" are not referring to only American citizens

Equal Protection Clause - no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. However, it grants equal protection, not equal rights, and applies only to states, not to the federal government.

Bottom Line - it is very clear that illegal immigrants DO NOT have all the rights that law-abiding American citizens have such as the rights to vote, possessing the firearms, and many more.
 
NY Times breakdown on the AZ immigration bill

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them.
It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling.
Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license.
Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

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.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

Op-Ed Contributor - Why Arizona Had to Draw a Line on Illegal Immigrants - NYTimes.com
 
I agreed with Jiro and Texan Guy on immigrant issues.

Steinhauer, Jiro isn't liberal nor is conservative, he's centrist so enough to label him as liberal or other political views.

My views is based on heavily liberties, even mandatory insurance coverage is unacceptable and overkill; and leaning to liberal on fiscal issues, depends on situations.
 
I agreed with Jiro and Texan Guy on immigrant issues.

Steinhauer, Jiro isn't liberal nor is conservative, he's centrist so enough to label him as liberal or other political views.

My views is based on heavily liberties, even mandatory insurance coverage is unacceptable and overkill; and leaning to liberal on fiscal issues, depends on situations.

Jiro may be a centrist, but granting amnesty to illegals is a liberal agenda, one being promulgated by those opposing Arizona's new law.
 
Jiro may be a centrist, but granting amnesty to illegals is a liberal agenda, one being promulgated by those opposing Arizona's new law.

but Bush Admin backed to granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.
FOXNews.com - Bush Amnesty Plan Raises Immigration Concerns - Opinion
Bush proposes some amnesty for illegal immigrants

I don't have any favor in granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, however I think it should up to state whatever they are on next to Mexico, especially Texas and only problem about immigrants are federal issue. I think it need more debate on amnesty and I have feel that good illegal immigrants who lived in US for many years or have families with US citizens or green card so they should receive a permanent resident after pay fine and taxes.

I lived in LA for over 10 years before resided to IL in 2006 and met some people who is illegal immigrants, they are just human and nice, except for criminal to be illegal aliens in US and I have mixed feeling about them.
 
but Bush Admin backed to granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.
FOXNews.com - Bush Amnesty Plan Raises Immigration Concerns - Opinion
Bush proposes some amnesty for illegal immigrants

I don't have any favor in granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, however I think it should up to state whatever they are on next to Mexico, especially Texas and only problem about immigrants are federal issue. I think it need more debate on amnesty and I have feel that good illegal immigrants who lived in US for many years or have families with US citizens or green card so they should receive a permanent resident after pay fine and taxes.

I lived in LA for over 10 years before resided to IL in 2006 and met some people who is illegal immigrants, they are just human and nice, except for criminal to be illegal aliens in US and I have mixed feeling about them.

Bush did not grant amnesty - this is what he actually did:
CBP Today - May 2006 - President Bush to accelerate Border Patrol strategy with National Guard

blaming all this on the republicans is yet another liberal strategy .... and a lie. Look at what they are claiming is a "racist" law. I do not pander to liberals or their puppets.

I have mixed feelings on illegals too. I also have mixed feelings on "nice" bank robbers. What if the bank robber only committed the crime to feed his newborn baby? Is it ethical then? Should we allow him to continue robbing banks?

We cannot start making exceptions on which illegals can stay and which have to leave. They all have to leave and come back as legals.

Suppose you and your neighbor are friends. Would you enter your neighbors house uninvited?
 
Bush did not grant amnesty - this is what he actually did:
CBP Today - May 2006 - President Bush to accelerate Border Patrol strategy with National Guard

blaming all this on the republicans is yet another liberal strategy .... and a lie. Look at what they are claiming is a "racist" law. I do not pander to liberals or their puppets.

I have mixed feelings on illegals too. I also have mixed feelings on "nice" bank robbers. What if the bank robber only committed the crime to feed his newborn baby? Is it ethical then? Should we allow him to continue robbing banks?

We cannot start making exceptions on which illegals can stay and which have to leave. They all have to leave and come back as legals.

Suppose you and your neighbor are friends. Would you enter your neighbors house uninvited?

In bold, I don't say about Bush did but he is just backed it (favored in but never take action) and never pass in congress for some reason, possibly difficult to do it.

There's word for you, both of liberal and conservative are purely corruption so I don't care about whichever political parties but person who runs in political is. It doesn't means all liberal are bad but just in person, of course, they have totally different views and it is depends on countries.

Sorry, illegal immigrants and bank robbers are just apple to orange, in my opinion because bank robbers aren't acceptable so they can find way to support their family instead of rob the bank. For illegal immigrants, the existing immigrant law in US need be reformed because some illegal immigrants have trouble to find jobs in Mexico so they ended up to crossing in US and it is hard to get a green card in US due quota limit. I believe that NAFTA has contributed to economy issue in Mexico and I just found from Food Inc. about farmers in Mexico is severe damaged due NAFTA.

Now, illegally crossing to US is no solution because of hard to find a job during economy downturn and I do favor citizens to get job first before immigrants, regardless on legal or illegal, however if job is severe shortage so we should close or limit to immigrants until recover to increase of job availability.

I would like to see court to hear about okay to put the National Guards on US-MX border and I have no opinion on this issue, except for hire more border patrols.
 
Time's ticking... just the matter of time till Supreme Court strikes it down as blatantly unconstitutional and Department of Justice completes its investigation on Arizona officials like Sheriff Joe Arpaio for violation of civil rights, abuse of power, etc.

Once the immigration law gets struck down - I call for Governor Jan Brewer's resignation because she knowingly and willfully signed an illegal law. Looking at her political background - she is clearly unfit for duty. That's why former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (a seasoned public servant) was appalled at this.

This thread is limited to discussion on the legality of this Arizona's immigration law. Any other matter not relating to legal discussion - you can go ahead and make a thread about it. :ty:
Unless you're a citizen and resident of Arizona, legally you have no say in what happens to the governor. That's up to the people of that state.

Even for the people of Arizona, they can't do anything legally against the governor until and IF the law is struck down as unconstitutional. If that doesn't happen, they have no legal grounds to remove her from office.
 
Foxrac and Steinhauer - please adhere to OP rule :ty:

This thread is limited to discussion on the legality of this Arizona's immigration law. Any other matter not relating to legal discussion - you can go ahead and make a thread about it.

I do not care about what your political view is or what your personal opinion is or if you're a Son of Liberty or an immigrant. Take it to PM land or make a thread about it. :ty:
 
Foxrac and Steinhauer - please adhere to OP rule :ty:



I do not care about what your political view is or what your personal opinion is or if you're a Son of Liberty or an immigrant. Take it to PM land or make a thread about it. :ty:

I'm sorry because I don't understand your post because I think it is related to immigrant issue.
 
Unless you're a citizen and resident of Arizona, legally you have no say in what happens to the governor. That's up to the people of that state.

Even for the people of Arizona, they can't do anything legally against the governor until and IF the law is struck down as unconstitutional. If that doesn't happen, they have no legal grounds to remove her from office.

Actually yes I do have a say. It's called free speech. I can express my opinion to Arizona people to act on it to call for their governor's resignation. Like I said - if the immigration law is struck down as unconstitutional which it will, then they do have legal grounds to call for her resignation.
 
I'm sorry because I don't understand your post because I think it is related to immigrant issue.

This thread is limited to discussion of the legality of Arizona's immigration law. if you believe this law is legal or not... then argue your case here along with legal interpretation of the laws, Constitution, Supreme Court's rulings, etc.

Anything else - take it somewhere else like http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/77305-texas-lawmaker-introduce-anti-immigration-bill.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top