• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

Maybe you can explain what the judge's intention were when she placed an injunction on this portion of the Arizona law.

Mellie was completely wrong in her post. If a person is legally arrested there is nothing that prevents law enforcement from making efforts to determine a person's immigration status. In Calfornia, it is even REQUIRED and at least in LA County, ICE is very active in LACounty jails.

So her statement was completely inaccurate.

As far as the judge's intention. I'm not sure the judge had any "intention". The injunction is simply th mechanism whereby the judge makes an initial determination that those aspects of the law are "likely" to be found unconstitutional. THAT isn't surprising. Even a number of conservative legal scholars indicated that the law might have problems withstanding Constitutional challenges.
 
what are you talking about?

And where does it say judges can only cite court cases from their circuit court? Oh thats right, Nowhere!

A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper's question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful."

"In particular, the United States observes this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law

"We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit "have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,".


What part of that don't you understand?

You can "cite it" but it isn't controlling.

What part of that don't you understand?
 
I don't believe this law would accomplish what many people think it would - to stop the flow of illegals into the country. Murder is illegal, but people still murder. Illegals will still enter the country and because there's not comprehensive immigration reform the employers will still exploit them and pay them substandard wages for their work.
 
If some of the provisions which she enjoined are found to be invalid on equal protection grounds, because those provisions are based on and parallel to existing federal law, then she'll have to invalidate the underlying federal law, too.

Please explain how it parallel the federal law. Honest question.
 
I don't see how anyone can honestly say that the AZ law won't lead to racial profiling, considering where AZ is geographically located and that illegals tend to be hispanic.

I would actually find it to be more honest and realistic if someone just came out and said, "We SHOULD be profiling hispanics to see if they are legal." I mean, it would be unPC, but at least that's the honest truth of what the law makers are beating around the bush about. But no, we're just going to pretend that it's an innocent law for the security of America and we're just going to catch people as they commit other crimes.

The level of bull****ting here is just off the scale. I agree that enforcement of the law should be suspended until the Fed case goes through.
 
Good ruling. The thing is, that if they checked the legal status of everyone, I'd be fine with this law. But the whole reasonable suspicion thing, is bull. It might as well say if you catch any person who looks latino check them to see if they are legal.

Doesn't everyone have to carry a driver's license when driving a car? According to Susan Bolton, illegals don't have to keep any kind of ID on their person; and she's denied police officers--in accordance with their duty--the ability to enforce the law.

This is a travesty of justice. I wonder what Obama promised her.
 
I don't see how anyone can honestly say that the AZ law won't lead to racial profiling, considering where AZ is geographically located and that illegals tend to be hispanic.

I would actually find it to be more honest and realistic if someone just came out and said, "We SHOULD be profiling hispanics to see if they are legal." I mean, it would be unPC, but at least that's the honest truth of what the law makers are beating around the bush about. But no, we're just going to pretend that it's an innocent law for the security of America and we're just going to catch people as they commit other crimes.

The level of bull****ting here is just off the scale. I agree that enforcement of the law should be suspended until the Fed case goes through.

Would you be saying the same thing if it were white people that were the illegal aliens?
 
As far as the judge's intention. I'm not sure the judge had any "intention". The injunction is simply th mechanism whereby the judge makes an initial determination that those aspects of the law are "likely" to be found unconstitutional. THAT isn't surprising. Even a number of conservative legal scholars indicated that the law might have problems withstanding Constitutional challenges.

Except that the government is mounting a facial challenge, not an as-applied challenge, and a facial challenge requires, for success, a demonstration the law can never be applied in a Constitutional manner -- and hypotheticals cannot meet that test. The burden, of course, is on the plaintiff to establish this, that it can never be applied in a Constitional manner. Which means all Arizona has to do is show a way in which it could be. Thus, it's rather dubious that the feds are "likely" to succeed, which is what's required for a preliminary injunction.

Also, a facial challenge fails when the state has a "plainly legitimate sweep." In deciding that there isn't one, a court may not go beyond the facial requirements of the law, nor may it use hypotheticals. Thus any theories about what "could" happen may not be considered; only the text of the law may be. So making an argument saying "sure, the law says THAT, but THIS could happen" (think "sure, the law says no racial profiling, but the officers could do it anyway") fails under a facial challenge. Yet she ruled the feds are "likely to succeed."
 
Last edited:
The way I see it is that AZ did what they did because the FEDERAL GOV'T failed the citizens of this COUNTRY not just AZ by not securing out border. I do not agree with what they did, BUT I UNDERSTAND why they did it.

There are defeats and wins for both sides as a result of 1070 being passed and in it being injuncted (sic). It helped bring the issue to the front because both Republicans and Democrats did NOTHING in the past to protect our border. We have a WAR going on on the Mexican border. And, still don't see US tanks, Copters, etc, patrolling it. Instead I see two parties using this to get themselves votes.

I believe yesterday, an article came out that stated the cartels had severed the head of several victims. Severed heads discovered in Mexico state - UPI.com

Believe it or not, the injunction can hurts those that are protesting the law. If the law is struck down, this issue could possibly go back to the back. And, it will not force both parties to sit down and figure out the issues, so the path to citizenship will continue to be a major pain in the A$$.
 
Doesn't everyone have to carry a driver's license when driving a car? According to Susan Bolton, illegals don't have to keep any kind of ID on their person; and she's denied police officers--in accordance with their duty--the ability to enforce the law.

This is a travesty of justice. I wonder what Obama promised her.

It is against the AZ law to fail to produce ID.
 
Doesn't everyone have to carry a driver's license when driving a car? According to Susan Bolton, illegals don't have to keep any kind of ID on their person; and she's denied police officers--in accordance with their duty--the ability to enforce the law.

This is a travesty of justice. I wonder what Obama promised her.

Don't you realize that one can commit a crime without being in a car.
 
Don't you realize that one can commit a crime without being in a car.

You are correct. That was one of the arguments raised successfully against part of the statute with respect to the temporary injunction. Judge Bolton noted:

...the United States suggests that the impact on lawfully-present aliens is enhanced because this requirement applies to stops for even very minor, non-criminal violations of state law, including jaywalking, failing to have a dog on a leash, or riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. (Id. at 28.)...

Hines cautions against imposing burdens on lawfully-present aliens such as those described above.


In fact, the applicable language in the Arizona Legislation stated was expansive:

IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

The broad language referring to "a violation of state or local law" makes clear that the Arizona law covered more than driving-related offenses.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how anyone can honestly say that the AZ law won't lead to racial profiling, considering where AZ is geographically located and that illegals tend to be hispanic.

And what about that makes it automatic that people are going to just stop following the law.

Inner city crime is typically disproportionately performed by blacks, yet we don't have cops frisking every other black person in a city for guns, drugs, or illegal items simply because they're black and thus suspicious. That ALSO requires reasonable suspicion, just like this law, and also doesn't allow racial profiling to happen.

Where is this notion coming from that illegality is automatically going to become common place?
 
It can be.

However "He's mexican" can not be used as reasonable suspicion as that is racial profiling and racial profiling is illegal.

Even JUST a DUI would not necessarily likely give means to have reasonable suspicion as there's no real reasonable way to articulate why its more likely that a person whose not legally in the country is going to be driving drunk than someone who isn't.

However if someones pulled over for DUI and doesn't have a license, that would likely be a legitimate thing to have a reasonable suspicion as its likely able to hold up articulating that the reason you asked for his papers is because its realistic to think someone that doesn't have a license could be that way because they can't legally get one.

Simply charging someone with a Crime doesn't suddenly make racial profiling legal, under this law or any other law. There's no way, under federal laws, to go "That man is mexican, I am using that as a basis for my search" other than situations where there is a very specific and narrowly defined subject (Such as "A 5'5" mexican man in blue jeans and a red t-shirt just robbed my store")

Will you show where this is illegal? other than the 1070 law that was just castrated.
 
other than the 1070 law that was just castrated.

It seems, no authority other than the ICE may inquire about immigration status...

I reckon it stops enactment of AZ SB 1070
 
I'm pretty sure there is a better way to go about this, The republicans pushing for this know this is gonna get turned down. They are just appealing to their constituents, Republicans will never be able to win the Latino vote so why not aggressively push this and win over some people on the fence. Liberals in turn are often putting a spin on it just saying it's "Racist". I'd like to see the Democrats in office including Obama explore better ways of handling illegal immigration which is obviously not happening.

I don't think anybody is also mentioning just how costly something like this would be, I mean incarcerating people is expensive and shouldn't Police officers have more important things to do rather than bring in Jorge because he doesn't have his papers? Illegal Immigration isn't going to stop but there are ways to curb the violence and cut the amount of people coming over. Legalizing all drugs would really take a bulk of violent illegals out of the picture but thats for a different discussion.

Article One, Section 8
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Arizona can act within what federal law permits but this law goes beyond what federal law permits this, and thus it will be struck down.
 
Last edited:
Lets ask this: If AZ law enforcement can't check to see who is legal, then who can? What government agency is authorized to "check".. How many of them do we have? How often, and under what circumstances do they "check" legal status?

Don't you all see what a mess this is?


Tim-
 
Lets ask this: If AZ law enforcement can't check to see who is legal, then who can? What government agency is authorized to "check".. How many of them do we have? How often, and under what circumstances do they "check" legal status?

Don't you all see what a mess this is?


Tim-

If the Arizona police want to check the citizenship of people they arrest then great. But they should check everybody they arrest, not just people with "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal.
 
If the Arizona police want to check the citizenship of people they arrest then great. But they should check everybody they arrest, not just people with "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal.

but if they do that then they would lose support for the bill...
 
So If Im mexican I should deal with having to possibly prove my citizenship everywhere I go possibly. Even if I were legal. At the risk of ending up detained for not having papers?

I dont care about catching illegals that much. Its the legals that may suffer due to this that bothers me.

Absolutely not. If you cooperate with the cop, have a legal driver's license and registration for the car, there is no reason for the cop to have reasonable suspicion to inquire your status...
 
Doesn't everyone have to carry a driver's license when driving a car? According to Susan Bolton, illegals don't have to keep any kind of ID on their person; and she's denied police officers--in accordance with their duty--the ability to enforce the law.

This is a travesty of justice. I wonder what Obama promised her.

And you would expect anything different from a Clinton appointee?
 
If the Arizona police want to check the citizenship of people they arrest then great. But they should check everybody they arrest, not just people with "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal.

LEOs don't check everyone for a potential offense against the law, only people they have a "reasonable suspicion" of doing so. Why should this be any different?
 
Wait a minute...It is my understanding that in a DUI one is arrested, is that right? If so the subjects immigration status can, should, and will be checked.

j-mac

That is true but I think the poster was saying that if the drunk was Mexican then the officer was racist in his arrest.

Why else would he have brought up the drunks country of origin?
 
Good luck enforcing the law WITHOUT racially profiling when the majority of illegals are mexican. And the majority of mexicans are legal.

I wonder how the legal mexicans feel about this.

Traffic laws in Compton California are racist just like some people say this law is only because the police pull over more blacks than whites.

It can't have anything to do with the fact that there are more blacks driving in Compton than whites.
 
Back
Top Bottom