• 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

Zyphlin said:
It affecting a disproportionate amount of Hispanic people than white people != racial profiling.

Racial Profiling is taking action based on the notion that someone is of [X] race and therefore that is reason to do whatever you're going to do.

Reasonable Suspicion requires the officer be able to articulate the reasonings behind their action, stating "He looked mexican" is not a legal reasoning.
Click to expand...

However..... he couldn't speak English, he was driving without a license, and couldn't tell me where he lived is "probable cause".
 
SE102 said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is all already required by federal law. All legal aliens are required at all times to carry their documentation on their person and present it when asked. Any federal agent can ask for it, and within 50 miles of the border, they need no cause whatsoever. They need no reason to stop anyone. They can just do it, period.

So, yeah, federal law is very much in jeopardy here, if the AZ law is struck down on the basis of "racial profiling."
 
Harshaw said:
That is all already required by federal law. All legal aliens are required at all times to carry their documentation on their person and present it when asked. Any federal agent can ask for it, and within 50 miles of the border, they need no cause whatsoever. They need no reason to stop anyone. They can just do it, period.

So, yeah, federal law is very much in jeopardy here, if the AZ law is struck down on the basis of "racial profiling."
Click to expand...

Would you link the federal law that supports this?
 
Mellie said:
What kind of country are we now that police can arrest you for and illegal action, say, DUI, but then they can't do any research to find out if you're in their state illegally? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Thats not even close to being factually accurate.....but you made a great effort to distort and propogandize.
 
disneydude said:
Thats not even close to being factually accurate.....but you made a great effort to distort and propogandize.
Click to expand...

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

to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.
Click to expand...
 
The way I see it is this. Most people want to control our borders to stop foreign invaders but some don't. The ones who don't, will use any technicality or loophole they can find to support their position. But, at the end of the day, truth be known, they just don't want immigration control. They want our borders to be open to Mexico. We don't see Canadians whining about this.

IF the federal gov't DID enforce the laws already on the books, the open-border people would just turn their anger from AZ to the Fed. They just don't WANT immigration control, pure and simple.

Just an opinion.
 
While I understand the problem the State of Arizona is facing concerning illegal aliens within their state, I think the problem the federal government has with this law is it oversteps its bounds. For example, it's one thing if the law limited its reach to the State of Arizona, but if you read the law there are various places within it where aspects of enforcement covers the "United States". Section 1, third sentence:

The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.
Click to expand...

Had that portion of the law instead read "...unlawfully present in the state of Arizona" I don't think anyone would have a problem with it because the purpose of the law is to deter illegal aliens from entering their state, not the United States. As such, the law overstepped it's bounds.

There are other such provisions just like that one with AZ's immirgration law. Nonetheless, I want to make it clear - I don't have a problem with AZ or ANY STATE WITHIN THE UNION desiring to protect their boarders (statelines) from illegal entry of undocumented aliens. I just think if they're going to make a law covering the issue, they need to limit their reach to within their state, and not write such laws with such wide reaching authority they simply do not have. That, I believe, was part of the problem the Obama Administration had with AZ's immigration law. But I digress...

If government did a much better job of protecting our boarders maybe AZ wouldn't have to pass laws to do the job the fed should be doing. Still, I see both sides of this issue and both AZ and the fed are just as right as they are wrong.
 
The Dane said:
Bull****, a judge disagrees with your racist based policies, its against the law and got struck down.
Click to expand...

the sign of a beaten lib-screaming "racist"
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure. Not race based.
Click to expand...

being illegally here is not race based. Just because a certain ethnic group has less respect for our laws doesn't mean the law is racist

Is a law against murder racist since 6% of the population makes up 51% of the people convicted of murder?
 
Harshaw said:
Why are you directing that question at me?
Click to expand...

So sorry, I mistakenly thought you might be able to provide a sensible and logical answer to my question.
Please accept my apologies if I have in any way discomforted you.
 
jujuman13 said:
So sorry, I mistakenly thought you might be able to provide a sensible and logical answer to my question.
Please accept my apologies if I have in any way discomforted you.
Click to expand...

Well, considering I've been arguing consistently throughout this thread that no law has been struck down or changed, yeah, I'm a bit confused as to why you'd ask me if you're "to understand" that you "no longer" need to carry your green card.
 
Harshaw said:
Nothing was struck down. You really should quit while you're only slightly behind.
Click to expand...

Actually, the ability of racist Arizona cops to do THIS was struck down. A trucker was stopped in Arizona, and had his driver's license in order. However, he was not carrying his birth certificate with him, so he was thrown in jail. Who the hell carries their birth certificates with them at all times?

That trucker is an AMERICAN CITIZEN, who was born in Fresno, California. What Arizonans want to do smacks of South African apartheid. I know I am not supposed to judge people by where they are from, but I can't help feeling that the majority of Arizonans who support that law, and most of them do, would have made outstanding German citizens in the 1930's. Anyways, his rights were clearly violated. When a state law enables violations like this to happen, then it is not only the right of the Federal government to step in, but the duty of the Feds to step in.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Actually, the ability of racist Arizona cops to do THIS was struck down. A trucker was stopped in Arizona, and had his driver's license in order. However, he was not carrying his birth certificate with him, so he was thrown in jail. Who the hell carries their birth certificates with them at all times?

That trucker is an AMERICAN CITIZEN, who was born in Fresno, California. What Arizonans want to do smacks of South African apartheid. I know I am not supposed to judge people by where they are from, but I can't help feeling that the majority of Arizonans who support that law, and most of them do, would have made outstanding German citizens in the 1930's.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, it was NOT struck down. Enforcement of some of the provisions of the law was enjoined temporarily.

Which doesn't even matter in this instance, because the law in question in no way authorized what happened in that case.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you. You believe she is ignoring, but you may well be wrong. What site did you grab these from?
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a lawyer to read case law.
 
Harshaw said:
None of those cases is a 9th Circuit case, and the sole Supreme Court case there isn't on point (though it does say that asking about immigration status doesn't violate the 4th Amendment). So, she wasn't ignoring anything she was bound to follow.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Its pathetic and clearly political in nature on her end. She is throwing out federal law at the same time. So much for interpreting the law.
Click to expand...

Please explain how this throws out federal law?
 
The Dane said:
Your in no place to state whether or not a judge knows what she's talking about.
Click to expand...
And are you in a place to state that the judge does know? This ruling was wrong, and it was a judge legislating politics from the bech. I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, where it will be upheld as lawful.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Hicup said:
What's racist about profiling for a specific crime? Can you, or anyone else explain this to me? What is your idea of what racism, is? You do know that we target arabs in wiretapping, surveillance, and so on, right? Is this ok with you? I mean, you, and people like you, are dangerous to my family! I suspect you have NO good reason for NOT profiling, only that you think it's bad.. Well why is it bad?


Tim-
Click to expand...


The judges decision was based on the fact that legal immigrants would be held on a warrantless arrest while checking citizenship status.

In her 36-page decision, Bolton wrote that the provisions would have inevitably "swept up" legal immigrants and were "preempted" by the federal government's immigration authority
Click to expand...
.

Arizona immigration: Immigration law blocked - latimes.com
 
texmaster said:
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?
Click to expand...

A court can find caselaw from other jurisdictions persuasive, but that court is never bound by it. Thus, the judge was not required to follow anything from a different circuit. She could ignore it at her pleasure.
 
TBone said:
Please explain how this throws out federal law?
Click to expand...

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.
 
j-mac said:
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
Click to expand...

yes, and the ruling also requires the police to enforce federal immigration laws.

Some aspects of the measure, listed as SB 1070, will take effect Thursday as planned. It will become a crime for state officials to interfere with or refrain from enforcement of federal immigration laws. It will also be illegal to pick up and transport day laborers across the state, or to give a ride to or harbor an illegal alien. A vehicle used to transport an illegal alien can be impounded
Click to expand...

Arizona Immigration Law: Judge Susan Bolton Blocks Parts of SB 1070 - ABC News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom