The AZ Immigration Law Has Been Decided

AdamT said:

Yes, they pretty much kicked AZ in the balls. The only reason they upheld the one section is that they didn't see a conflict with federal law. And of course there's still a good chance the one remaining section could fall on other grounds.

Click to expand...

That 'one section'...which is the section that people continued to protest? Which is the section that democrats were so upset about? Which is the section that people here discussed. Oh yeah...the...one they upheld. Huh.

And you didnt quite explain how it is a 'win' for anyone considering the fed refuses to enforce illegal immigration while leaving the states on the hook to deal with the mess...no suprise there.

I have never gotten the AZ immigration law. What is the purpose for arresting someone? Because they are suspected of committing a crime and its the FIRST STEP in a process to hold the suspected criminal accountable, right? The state of Arizona has absolutely no legal structure in place to indict, try and carry out immigration law violations sentences. The state AZ prosecutors did not and cannot have trials for people expected to illegal immigration. So what do they do with the people they arrest, if they are here illegally in the first place? ? Catch and release anybody who looks Mexican. Arrest them, make them spend the night in jail then let them go in the morning. The AZ courts can't hold a trial on immigration law violations. They can't deport anyone since state governments have no relationship with Mexican or whatever country counterparts. All this law did IMHO was make police harassment of Hispanics legal and told the fastest growing minority in America who will eventually be citizens as well as their children, grand-children and great-grand-children to never vote Republican under any circumstance. Gotta be the dumbest law passed in America in my lifetime.

Ontologuy said:

No.

I put "White" in quotes in specific reference to Gina's earlier attempt to create a false dichotomy in the discussion.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. thanks for clearing that up.

An irony of the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday on Arizona’s immigration law is that the chief part President Obama and his top advisers complained about is the one part the court upheld.

As Arizona was debating the law, Mr. Obama, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and other top officials said it would lead to racial profiling by allowing police to stop and demand the legal status of those they suspected to be in the country illegally.

But that’s the one part of the law the Supreme Court upheld unanimously, with the justices saying they will give police a chance to see if they can implement the law properly without violating civil rights.

“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume [that section] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The law had four chief components. Three sections that set up state criminal penalties for immigration violations were struck down in the 5-3 ruling.

But all eight justices upheld the provision allowing police to check the status of those they had “reasonable suspicion” were in the country illegally, and then report their identity to federal authorities. The federal government could then decide whether it wanted to pick up and deport the illegal immigrants or let them go.

Justices' split decision preserves contentious section on police check power - Washington Times

Soooooooo...

Ontologuy said:

There are roughly 20 million illegals in America. Are you saying that for each one of them there will be one similarly-looking American citizen detained in the search for the 20 million illegals?

Click to expand...

This is where I misunderstood you. So please allow me to restate.

You don't agree with me, fine. There are a greater number of legal American citizens of Hispanic and Native American heritage who will be subject to being stopped and questioned about their citizenship based merely on suspicion. I am a true American and given the lack of good reason to stop my relatives other than they resemble, in a broad and non-specific way (like gender, height, hair or lack of it) suspected illegals, they and I would not be thankful. Especially when children could be involved.

While you may be fine with it, doesn't make it right.

Revealing? In what way. I thought you were expressing an extreme view point or sarcasm about "Real Americans". My mistake.

Smeagol said:

I have never gotten the AZ immigration law. What is the purpose for arresting someone? Because they are suspected of committing a crime and its the FIRST STEP in a process to hold the suspected criminal accountable, right? The state of Arizona has absolutely no legal structure in place to indict, try and carry out immigration law violations. The state AZ prosecutors did not and cannot have trials for people expected to illegal immigration. So what do they do with the people they arrest, if they are here illegally in the first place? ? Catch and release anybody who looks Mexican. Arrest them, make them spend the night in jail then let them go in the morning. The AZ courts can't hold a trial on immigration law violations. They can't deport anyone since state governments have no relationship with Mexican or whatever country counterparts. All this law did IMHO was make police harassment of Hispanics legal and told the fastest growing minority in America who will eventually be citizens as well as their children, grand-children and great-grand-children to never vote Republican under any circumstance. Gotta be the dumbest law passed in America in my lifetime.

Click to expand...

Illegals were/are doing a tremendous damage to the state by doing a tremedous damage to American citizens living in AZ.

The fed did nothing.

So AZ tried to defend itself against the onslaught, tried to take care of itself when those who were supposed to be doing that job refused, and they tried to call attention to their plight.

Well, that last part worked .. and to the degree that the most controversial part of the AZ law was upheld.

I'm pretty sure AZ never expected the SCOTUS to let them arrest and deport etc., the federal government's constitutional job.

But it would not surprise me if the detain and question and report to the fed part that was upheld -- historically a part of inter-agency law enforcement cooperation -- was the real objective all along, the validation that inter-agency reporting as a threat to illegals is alive and well and that the state and its local affiliates do have communication power to find and report illegals so that the fed has a record of who to pursue, and that the SCOTUS's constitutional concurrence of that make it clear that such efforts of AZ state and local law enforcement personnel could not be "overriden" or "ignored" by some federal wing-nut in pandering power at the moment.

Smart, really, all things considered.

VanceMack said:

So essentially the SCOTUS upheld the only part of the law that anyone was talking about?

Click to expand...

Yup. As for the rest, though I'd like to see it happen, it really is up to the feds to decide criminalization on this issue.

Thunder said:

wait, SCOTUS decided that its unConstitutionsal for there to be a state law making it illegal for unlawful immigrants to work?

they are saying that illegal aliens have the right to work in the USA???

Click to expand...

That's the way I interpreted it, too. That makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Thunder
wait, SCOTUS decided that its unConstitutionsal for there to be a state law making it illegal for unlawful immigrants to work?

they are saying that illegal aliens have the right to work in the USA???

Click to expand...

Yes and no, they're saying that determination can only be made at the federal level. It's up to the feds to determine criminality of illegals working.

Gina said:

There are a greater number of legal American citizens of Hispanic and Native American heritage who will be subject to being stopped and questioned about their citizenship based merely on suspicion.

Click to expand...

And, yes, we most certainly disagree as to your quantification.

You say "a greater number".

I say it will be a teeny tiny lesser number than you state.

You earlier said that it would be, in effect, a one-for-one stopping and questioning of American citizens for each of the 20 million illegals in America.

I'm saying, no, that's a gross exaggeration, made for ideologically motivated hyperbole effect.

I'm saying that it likely won't be more than 1 in 10,000, or at best 2,000 Americans nation-wide of all races and appearances, if that, that will be stopped and questioned about their citizenship.

And I'm saying that because law enforcement simply does not merely go on looks in a situation like this, and it's preposterous ideological posturing to say that they do.

Law enforcement will also be looking at behavior and reflecting attitudes before detaining someone.

So, knowing how law enforcement works, I see no basis for your extreme exaggerations, extreme exaggerations that merely function to create unjustified hysteria.

And regarding your phrase "based merely on suspicion", last time I looked, "suspicion" in the eyes of law enforcement is exactly what a stop and momentary detaining in such a situation as this would logically, rationally be based upon, a justified suspicion based on multiple relevant criteria in the matter.

Gina said:

I am a true American

Click to expand...

A true American citizen is opposed to illegal immigration as illegal immigration is a crime against fellow American citizens.

No true American would support such a crime against their fellow American citizens, and any American who condones illegal immigration is a complict accomplice to the associated crimes, in effect, a Benedict Arnold to fellow American citizens, and to America itself.

What part of that statement do you have a problem with?

Gina said:

and given the lack of good reason to stop my relatives other than they resemble, in a broad and non-specific way (like gender, height, hair or lack of it) suspected illegals, they and I would not be thankful. Especially when children could be involved.

Click to expand...

If there is indeed "a lack of good reason" to stop anyone, I doubt that law enforcement will stop that individual(s).

What makes you fear otherwise?

As to your relatives being stopped, have you asked them if they would mind being momentarily stopped in an effort to stop the egregious crime against Americans that illegall immigration is, in the name of putting an end to the economy-killing prolem for millions of American citizens?

Maybe they wouldn't mind at all.

Or, maybe that one relative of yours is married .. to an illegal?!

Regardless, the stop and detain activities of law enforcement is based on more than mere looks. By utilziing more than just looks they can stop and detain all ethnicities, as the problem isn't all about "Mexicans" as is ludirously accused, as illegal immigrants come from all over the world.

Law enforcement knows what it's doing, obviously.

No need to contrive hysteria where none exists.

Gina said:

While you may be fine with it, doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

And your paranoia doesn't make such fear-fantasies reality.

Besides, again, people get stopped and detained all the time in America because for one rational reason or another they look, act, etc. like someone the police are searching for, and without either force or hundcuffs, after a few questions, the police thank them for their patience in attempting to find the real criminal and they go on their way.

Americans who are oblivious to this reality of every-day law enforcement activity in hunting for the criminal either don't watch enough law-enforcement TV shows to know that it happens all the time, or are simply uninformed as to normal relevant occurrences in general.

Gina said:

Revealing? In what way. I thought you were expressing an extreme view point or sarcasm about "Real Americans". My mistake.

Click to expand...

Your projection is meaningless.

Your mistake which I "cleverly" called you on was about your error in understanding how law enforcement works and to also refute your call for hysteria in the face of an unreal fear.

Ontologuy said:

A true American citizen is opposed to illegal immigration as illegal immigration is a crime against fellow American citizens.

Click to expand...

No true scotsman bases their arguments on fallacies.

Ontologuy said:

If there is indeed "a lack of good reason" to stop anyone, I doubt that law enforcement will stop that individual(s).

What makes you fear otherwise?

Click to expand...

Oh ... maybe the history of such racist actions in the past few years could lead a more rational person to think arbitrary questioning of individuals will occur.

Arizona HB 2162
On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the Act that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."[28] The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100,[26] and changes incarceration limits for first-time offenders from 6 months to 20 days.[10]

Click to expand...

Source is the wiki, which is appropriate for this.

This part of the law was ruled invalid by today's decision. Arizona law enforcement can not detain individuals without approval of federal authorities.

changes incarceration limits for first-time offenders from 6 months to 20 days.

Click to expand...

Ontologuy said:

Illegals were/are doing a tremendous damage to the state by doing a tremedous damage to American citizens living in AZ.

The fed did nothing.

So AZ tried to defend itself against the onslaught, tried to take care of itself when those who were supposed to be doing that job refused, and they tried to call attention to their plight.

Well, that last part worked .. and to the degree that the most controversial part of the AZ law was upheld.

I'm pretty sure AZ never expected the SCOTUS to let them arrest and deport etc., the federal government's constitutional job.

But it would not surprise me if the detain and question and report to the fed part that was upheld -- historically a part of inter-agency law enforcement cooperation -- was the real objective all along, the validation that inter-agency reporting as a threat to illegals is alive and well and that the state and its local affiliates do have communication power to find and report illegals so that the fed has a record of who to pursue, and that the SCOTUS's constitutional concurrence of that make it clear that such efforts of AZ state and local law enforcement personnel could not be "overriden" or "ignored" by some federal wing-nut in pandering power at the moment.

Smart, really, all things considered.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Federal government was doing its job wrt immigration either, and not just Obama but Bush also. I just don't think a state government is appropriately empowered to enforce federal law, especially not immigration law. All a state can do is arrest the suspected illegal immigrant. Then what? The federal government has the INS to see each situation to completion. Arizona doesn't have the INS at its disposal so what was supposed to happen after the arrest?

If Arizona is upset because the federal government won't act a better plan would be to sue the federal government for the state costs of illegal immigration and/or better still, repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to the way the Founding Fathers set the country up giving the state governments there due say in Washington. I'd even be okay with Arizona putting up their section of the fence on the Mexican border. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with illegal immigration because obviously there is. I just cannot see what the police were supposed to do with suspected illegal immigrants when they have no structure in place to process them once arrested.

Tucker Case said:

No true scotsman bases their arguments on fallacies.

Click to expand...

My implied point-in-the-making is that there is a very wide swing on the interpretation of what constitutes a "true" anything, which I make to allow the reader the privilege of negating their own opposing opinion that "true Americans support illegal immigration".

Somerville said:

Oh ... maybe the history of such racist actions in the past few years could lead a more rational person to think arbitrary questioning of individuals will occur.

Click to expand...

Contrary to what race-baiters say, illegal immigration isn't about race, as all races and ethnicities are found in the set of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is solely about crime.

Thus effective law-enforcement techniques would include all methods of suspect profiling that accurately hones in on who the perps really are, thus making effective use of taxpayer dollars, not wasting time and money stopping people merely because they're of this or that race, a very low-percentage and thus costly approach.

To think that law enforcement will stop people merely because of their racial/ethnic looks in the matter is either ludicrous thought .. or plain ol' race-baiting for political power-pandering purposes.

I predict, that within a matter of hours, days at the most, that DHS, DOJ and ICE will have a sudden and severe "lack of resources" to deal with ANY immigration status questions raised about those arrested and held in AZ. Federal pressure WILL be applied to "punish" this offer of FREE immigration enforcement help from the AZ law enforcement personnel. ;-)

Ontologuy said:

My implied point-in-the-making is that there is a very wide swing on the interpretation of what constitutes a "true" anything, which I make to allow the reader the privilege of negating their own opposing opinion that "true Americans support illegal immigration".

Click to expand...

There is only one definition of a "true American": an American citizen. :shrug:

Smeagol said:

I don't think the Federal government was doing its job wrt immigration either, and not just Obama but Bush also. I just don't think a state government is appropriately empowered to enforce federal law, especially not immigration law. All a state can do is arrest the suspected illegal immigrant. Then what? The federal government has the INS to see each situation to completion. Arizona doesn't have the INS at its disposal so what was supposed to happen after the arrest?

Click to expand...

I agree with you in your statement of whose job is what .. and yes, Bush was just as guilty as Obama for doing nothing significant to address the matter, as both have political power-pandering reasons to let illegal immigration continue.

But I disagree with you as to the detailed fine point, unless I misunderstand you, as the AZ SCOTUS-upheld function of stop and momentarily detain and report is simply not an arrest, and is more like what happens during a traffic-ticket stop: no one gets arrested, they're merely stopped, momentarily detained, and a report is made.

Like I said, AZ likely knew it wouldn't get away with the arrest and deport part of it's law once the SCOTUS got ahold of it.

They are apparentlly quite happy with being able to keep their stop, momentarily detain, and report aspect, which has sufficient teeth for the moment.

Smeagol said:

If Arizona is upset because the federal government won't act a better plan would be to sue the federal government for the state costs of illegal immigration and/or better still, repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to the way the Founding Fathers set the country up giving the state governments there due say in Washington. I'd even be okay with Arizona putting up their section of the fence on the Mexican border. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with illegal immigration because obviously there is. I just cannot see what the police were supposed to do with suspected illegal immigrants when they have no structure in place to process them once arrested.

Click to expand...

Agreed, with regard to an accurate definition of "arrest".

Whatever the next rational/legal step for AZ now in dealing with the illegals in AZ, yes, I hope they take it, and I hope they continue to be a leader in this matter for all states and our country as a whole.

Matt Foley said:

Which means it's useless.

AZ Republican Senators and governor knew this would happen, they want to keep their cheap foreign labor profits flowing into their pockets.

Click to expand...

Would it be fair to guess that you don't live in a border state?

Tucker Case said:

There is only one definition of a "true American": an American citizen. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Traitors, even technically before they lose their citizenship as a result, are effectively not "true Americans".

"True" Americanness is not a function of mere legal American-citizen status, but a function of behaving ethically toward all fellow American citizens.

Ontologuy said:

I agree with you in your statement of whose job is what .. and yes, Bush was just as guilty as Obama for doing nothing significant to address the matter, as both have political power-pandering reasons to let illegal immigration continue.

But I disagree with you as to the detailed fine point, unless I misunderstand you, as the AZ SCOTUS-upheld function of stop and momentarily detain and report is simply not an arrest, and is more like what happens during a traffic-ticket stop: no one gets arrested, they're merely stopped, momentarily detained, and a report is made.

Click to expand...

Oh, okay. I thought they were arresting people who look Hispanic for not carrying papers on them 24/7.

In any event, I'm sure you'd agree this is a big negative going forward for the GOP trying to get Hispanic votes, if that matters. I really wish the GOP would be more win - win in their solutions to problems. First, quit being reactionary and come up with the solution first. Then, just as the enforcement side is important, there needs to be something corresponding like English as a second language classes and teaching in American history conducted by GOP groups so that they'll always remember for generations who it was who help their families when they first came here.

Ontologuy said:

Traitors, even technically before they lose their citizenship as a result, are effectively not "true Americans".

"True" Americanness is not a function of mere legal American-citizen status, but a function of behaving ethically toward all fellow American citizens.

Click to expand...

More often then not when someone refers to "true" Americans, or the "real" America, they are referring to that subset of Americans who believe in their poltical views.

I'll have to review this when I get a chance, but I thought most of the AZ law was AZ doing the feds job because the feds wouldn't do it... If that is the case, perhaps it's time to send a case up the courts against the feds for negligence.