Arizona Immigration Law: Examining the Debate

[mheslep]

You said:

I interpreted the RS part (the Miranda part not being relevant here) as
1. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to convict.
2. Reasonable suspicion is not required under due process to detain.
3. Reasonable suspicion is not required under due process to arrest.
I was then disagreeing with #3. (#2 may also be wrong, but I'm less sure here.) In fact, more is true: probable cause is required to arrest.

More may be true, I don't know. Also I suspect I lack a full understanding of the difference between detain (held?) and arrest (charged by the cop with a crime?). Otherwise I assert that all three above are true, with some possible exceptions (Ca apparently?) here and there for convictions (#1).

I have made (and make) no such assertion. I'm not interested in participating in that part of this discussion, only discussing reasonable suspicion.

I thought it followed from disagreement with 2-3 above. If as you say 3 (maybe 2) is false, ie RS is required, how is it enforced? Hypothetical: A cop walks up, detains me, arrests me and puts me in jail without RS. Can I call another cop to stop him? If not, I assert 2-3 are visibly true. Note that stating that a states attorney would not charge a person held without RS merely collapses 2-3 back on top of #1.

 

[CRGreathouse]

More may be true, I don't know. Also I suspect I lack a full understanding of the difference between detain (held?) and arrest (charged by the cop with a crime?). Otherwise I assert that all three above are true, with some possible exceptions (Ca apparently?) here and there for convictions (#1).

My claims are that, contrary to your #2 and #3,
2a. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to detain.
3a. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to arrest.
3b. Probable cause is required under due process to arrest.
where 3a is redundant in the presence of 3b but is included for clarity.

I'm not quite sure of 2a, but I think that's true.

I thought it followed from disagreement with 2-3 above. If you say 2-3 are false, what positive force of law stops the cops from detaining or arresting without RS?

I'm still not interested in that discussion. I imagine that it's enforced by disciplinary action and civil and/or criminal law (e.g. harassment or wrongful arrest).

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I often wonder how people can be expected to follow the law when no person can even know it all...

It's hard I guess, when "ignorance of the law is no excuse" too. Still, most laws are pretty easy to obey if you're not being clearly criminal. Must be hard for the officers however.

 

[mheslep]

My claims are that, contrary to your #2 and #3,
2a. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to detain.
3a. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to arrest.
3b. Probable cause is required under due process to arrest.
where 3a is redundant in the presence of 3b but is included for clarity.

I'm not quite sure of 2a, but I think that's true.



I'm still not interested in that discussion. I imagine that it's enforced by disciplinary action and civil and/or criminal law (e.g. harassment or wrongful arrest).

Alright, we'll let it go if you like, and I'll complete my thought to in a no-reply post ...

 

[mheslep]

I think absent the idea of enforcement the word required becomes nebulous or meaningless in 1-3. In #1, 'required under process' is enforced by the fact that any conviction wrongfully obtained can, has, and will be overturned by the courts up to the USSC. But if I am in fact arrested without RS, maybe released sometime later (or deported), there's no recourse to overturn anything. There's only civil action - which I'm not sure applies unless the the state agrees by law that it can be sued (as I believe is true in this immigration case).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes I know that "reasonable suspicion" is necessary; the wording is in the law itself. The first 3 sentences of my post was addressing this issue. "Reasonable suspicion" as applied to this particular law, however, can be hard to judge at times. Does looking Mexican or non-Caucasian give "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant? Does not speaking English? Does hanging out by the home depot looking for work arouse "reasonable suspicion"?

"Reasonable suspicion" can be used right. For example, if you see a man walking down the street with a bloody machete, a block away from a murder by machete, then obviously it's smart to detain this man under "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". However, when we try to apply "reasonable suspicion" to this law, the morality of it becomes hazy and may lead to racial profiling.

This is a separate issue from the issue I was trying to address in my post though.

My point in my post has less to do with the reasonable suspicion (on whether or not you are an illegal immigrant) than to do with the fact that the police are allowed to ask you for ID GIVEN that reasonable suspicion (that you are an illegal immigrant), whatever that may mean, is present. They DO NOT need to have you ALREADY detained for some other previous crime or misdemeanor. The part I quoted, I think, makes this point very clear when they say "For ANY lawful contact...".

I understand the issue here regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. It is a major part of why I feel the whole thing is unconstitutional.
As for the misunderstanding it seemed to me very much like you were insinuating the police can stop anyone in public any time for any reason. Particularly this part here...

As far as I know, it is lawful for policemen to randomly make contact with citizens at any time on public property. The only instances of unlawful contact would be for intruding into your house or other private property without a warrant or immediate danger (such as chasing another criminal).

Sorry if I was mistaken.

 

[Jack21222]

russ:

About half the professors in the physics department where I attend would resent your remark that immigrants will be a net drain on the tax system. You see, about half of them are immigrants.

We have a few from China, one Russian, one Indian, and a Canadian. I can assure you that they all make enough money to pay federal income tax.

Was your point that only Hispanic immigrants are unable to climb the economic ladder?

 

[mgb_phys]

About half the professors in the physics department where I attend would resent your remark that immigrants will be a net drain on the tax system. You see, about half of them are immigrants.

Yes but how much do physics profs make? If they really wanted to benefit America they would become lawyers.

 

[edward]

russ:

About half the professors in the physics department where I attend would resent your remark that immigrants will be a net drain on the tax system. You see, about half of them are immigrants.

We have a few from China, one Russian, one Indian, and a Canadian. I can assure you that they all make enough money to pay federal income tax.

Was your point that only Hispanic immigrants are unable to climb the economic ladder?

This isn't about immigrants. This law is about illegal immigrants. Did any of the professors you mention above sneak across the border? Were they basically illiterate when they arrived here?

As far as the economic ladder the highest climbers are the drug smugglers.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

This isn't about immigrants. This law is about illegal immigrants. Did any of the professors you mention above sneak across the border? Were they basically illiterate when they arrived here?

A good point.

As far as the economic ladder the highest climbers are the drug smugglers.

Cite?

 

[mgb_phys]

This isn't about immigrants. This law is about illegal immigrants. Did any of the professors you mention above sneak across the border?

This law is about the police being able to stop people and demand their papers based only on race.
Obviously in Arizona it's only going to hassle mexican standing outside Home depot - but imagine in other states.
What if you were checking chinese outside the physics dept in Berkeley.

I work with a company that just moved it's development team from the west coast to Houston. The american but ethnically chinese and indian engineers were very resistant to moving to where they thought they would be surrounded by rednecks in white sheets with shotguns and pickups (racial stereotypes work both ways!)

Research triangle spent millions visiting universities and companies to persuade them that North Carolina doesn't = deliverance.
And ask Georgia tech what the state's image does to it's international recruitment efforts

 

[IcedEcliptic]

This law is about the police being able to stop people and demand their papers based only on race.
Obviously in Arizona it's only going to hassle mexican standing outside Home depot - but imagine in other states. What if you were checking chinese outside the physics dept in Berkeley.

I work with a company that just moved it's development team from the west coast to Houston. The ethnically chinese and indian engineers were very resistant to moving to where they thought they would be surrounded by rednecks in white sheets with shotguns and pickups (racial stereotypes work both ways!)

Research triangle spent millions visiting universities and companies to persuade them that North Carolina doesn't = deliverance.
And ask Georgia tech what the state's image does to it's international recruitment efforts

That's a good point, like the appearance of impropriety concept. Your comment about racism is so true, I traveled to Japan, and while I had no troubles, I have never met more racist people in my life. Not mean, but the stereotypes of myself (blond, with blue eyes, but not American or German) made them stare and not in a good way) and others (an Indian woman, and one American who is VERY tall) were looked upon as freaks. I heard a couple commenting that my American friend smelled, and to my nose he did not. I later learned that this is a common prejudice, much as Americans vs. Indians smelling of curry. At least the Japanese have the excuse that they have a small homogeneous population, what is Arizona's excuse?!

The federal government should employ a strategy, but that doesn't mean you should risk boycotts for this!

 

[biorhythm]

The absurdity of this law is obvious. Its a shame so many Americans are too obtuse to understand this.




A couple of things:

*Police are not neccesarily your friends

*Police are not neccesarily good people.

*It shows ones ignorance to hand over ones rights to a police force and trust in it to not misuse it

*It shows ones sickness to hand over someone elses rights to a police force and put them at the mercy of it

*Police can and do arrest people all over the world(including the USA) every day, for no real cause and without reasonable suspicion. To think this is not the case is ignorant.


*You really show your own lack of worth if you try to condemn others for being "illegal", as if that was some sort of moral crime. Someone being alive and happening to live on a certain continent does not make them a criminal in any sense of right and wrong.


*Its disgusting how ugly and uncouth people can be given the chance to pretend to be a moral judge. What about the young girls out there who get robbed, beatup or abused and are too afraid to be around cops now because they will be arrested, the people working 14 hour days and not getting paid for a months worth of work and being too afraid to do anything about it now. Peoples homes being robbed and families abused but they can't do anything about it.


*To say certain people don't have rights is pathetic. To not even have the right to just exist and walk down the street or live in ones house is absurd.

The people in Arizona who support this law don't deserve to be called Americans. And I certainly don't consider them compatriots.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The absurdity of this law is obvious. Its a shame so many Americans are too obtuse to understand this.

This isn't an argument. Perhaps you would like to sharpen it's focus?

A couple of things:

*Police are not neccesarily your friends

This is true of all people, and is a straw man argument.

*Police are not neccesarily good people.

This is true of all people, and is a straw man argument, and is pretty messed up too.

*It shows ones ignorance to hand over ones rights to a police force and trust in it to not misuse it

What rights have been "handed over" to the police by this law? Answer- NONE.

*It shows ones sickness to hand over someone elses rights to a police force and put them at the mercy of it

Everyone is subject to the laws of this country, whether they like it or not. Tell me, what "new" limitation has been put in place by this law? Legal aliens are already required to carry a green card with them, and to present it to authorities if required to.

*Police can and do arrest people all over the world(including the USA) every day, for no real cause and without reasonable suspicion. To think this is not the case is ignorant.

This isn't an argument, and isn't true anyway. Are we getting to some real facts any time soon?

*You really show your own lack of worth if you try to condemn others for being "illegal", as if that was some sort of moral crime. Someone being alive and happening to live on a certain continent does not make them a criminal in any sense of right and wrong.

So just because two countries happen to be on the same continent, they have no right to maintain sovereignty, borders, and laws? A foreign national crossing the border into the United States without registering properly violates the laws of the United States, and therefore is ILLEGAL.

Illegal- (adj) illegal (prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules) "an illegal chess move"

*Its disgusting how ugly and uncouth people can be given the chance to pretend to be a moral judge. What about the young girls out there who get robbed, beatup or abused and are too afraid to be around cops now because they will be arrested, the people working 14 hour days and not getting paid for a months worth of work and being too afraid to do anything about it now. Peoples homes being robbed and families abused but they can't do anything about it.

What the heck does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?! NOTHING.

*To say certain people don't have rights is pathetic. To not even have the right to just exist and walk down the street or live in ones house is absurd.

People of the planet don't have the natural in-born right to go into any country they want without following that country's laws. Rights given to people is a moral argument, but right to go wherever they want without consequence is not one of them.

The people in Arizona who support this law don't deserve to be called Americans. And I certainly don't consider them compatriots.

So you have absolute moral authority and anyone who disagrees with you isn't an American? American laws are to be disregarded if you feel like it?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

This isn't an argument. Perhaps you would like to sharpen it's focus?



This is true of all people, and is a straw man argument.



This is true of all people, and is a straw man argument, and is pretty messed up too.



What rights have been "handed over" to the police by this law? Answer- NONE.



Everyone is subject to the laws of this country, whether they like it or not. Tell me, what "new" limitation has been put in place by this law? Legal aliens are already required to carry a green card with them, and to present it to authorities if required to.



This isn't an argument, and isn't true anyway. Are we getting to some real facts any time soon?



So just because two countries happen to be on the same continent, they have no right to maintain sovereignty, borders, and laws? A foreign national crossing the border into the United States without registering properly violates the laws of the United States, and therefore is ILLEGAL.

Illegal- (adj) illegal (prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules) "an illegal chess move"



What the heck does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?! NOTHING.



People of the planet don't have the natural in-born right to go into any country they want without following that country's laws. Rights given to people is a moral argument, but right to go wherever they want without consequence is not one of them.



So you have absolute moral authority and anyone who disagrees with you isn't an American? American laws are to be disregarded if you feel like it?

I think he just insulted pretty much all of us here. He speaks like someone who does not really understand what a true police-state is. I give you a hint Biorythm, in police states the civilians don't outgun the police.

*Many police are your friends when you need them.
*All police are not BAD
*What rights do you hand-over? An officer may arrest you, and a judge can let you go and you can sue!
*We are all at one another's mercy, and anarchy is not merciful
*Some police break the law, so do civilians, so what? This should be cracked down on always.
*Being an illegal immigrant is a CRIME in the country you enter. I am not from the USA, but I am a naturalized citizen. I broke no laws to come here, and if I did, I am taking my chances. How does a reasonable person expect to start a good life in a new country by starting with a crime?
*Rights are an artificial (and beneficial) construction. You speak as though there is a "THEM", and an "US". We are them, and they are us! As Mech_Engineer said, there is no right to enter countries illegally. I still don't like this law, and it will almost certainly be overturned, but your arguments are insulting and ridiculous. Your presumption of who can be American is arrogant and meaningless.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I still don't like this law, and it will almost certainly be overturned, but your arguments are insulting and ridiculous. Your presumption of who can be American is arrogant and meaningless.

What is there to overturn? The law doesn't have anything in it that is new. In fact, I really only reinforces federal laws that already exist. This law is 100% constitutional.

 

[WhoWee]

This isn't about immigrants. This law is about illegal immigrants. Did any of the professors you mention above sneak across the border? Were they basically illiterate when they arrived here?

As far as the economic ladder the highest climbers are the drug smugglers.

Well done edward!

 

[Jack21222]

This isn't about immigrants. This law is about illegal immigrants. Did any of the professors you mention above sneak across the border? Were they basically illiterate when they arrived here?

As far as the economic ladder the highest climbers are the drug smugglers.

I was responding to a very specific claim made by russ:

You're not listening or are purposely ignoring the point: they will not be contributing to the federal income tax burden if made legal because their incomes are too small!

This was in response to a suggestion that we open up legal immigration.

Then, a few posts later:

That's silly, Kerrie. An adult immigrant is unlikely to become educated and move up - adults just don't do that. Now their kids are likely to move up because they will be educated in the US.

Those two statements have nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Russ was generalizing to all immigrants. I provided counterexamples.

Well done edward!

No, he was quoting me completely out of context. I was responding only to russ's characterization of legal immigrants.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

What is there to overturn? The law doesn't have anything in it that is new. In fact, I really only reinforces federal laws that already exist. This law is 100% constitutional.

Care to place a wager? I believe it will be decided that it violates the 4th and 14th amendments of the US constitution. I am no legal scholar, but we'll find out within a year unless boycotts and protests finish it first.

 

[WhoWee]

Care to place a wager? I believe it will be decided that it violates the 4th and 14th amendments of the US constitution. I am no legal scholar, but we'll find out within a year unless boycotts and protests finish it first.

Why do you think it violates (not one, but) two amendments?

 

[BobG]

What is there to overturn? The law doesn't have anything in it that is new. In fact, I really only reinforces federal laws that already exist. This law is 100% constitutional.

Care to place a wager? I believe it will be decided that it violates the 4th and 14th amendments of the US constitution. I am no legal scholar, but we'll find out within a year unless boycotts and protests finish it first.

I think it would be a fair wager. Perhaps 50/50.

The law looks constitutional, but it doesn't spell out what criteria is going to be used to determine reasonable suspicion.

That criteria has to be substantial enough that delaying a natural born citizen or an illegal immigrant would be a very rare event. It doesn't take much inconvenience of legal citizens to get the law struck down.

The criteria has to be effective in apprehending illegal immigrants in order to be worth even rare instances of delaying legal citizens. A bare minimum standard would be that more illegal immigrants are investigated than legal citizens - a low standard if stopping of legal citizens is a very rare event. A better standard would be to make a substantial dent in the number of illegal immigrants.

I think it's going to be a big challenge to balance both requirements. Procedures that will make apprehend enough illegal immigrants to be worth it will tend to result in more legal citizens being stopped. Procedures that prevent stopping legal citizens will take the teeth out of the law and result in almost no illegal immigrants being stopped.

I admit I'll be surprised if they find a balance that works, but a 50/50 wager is still reasonable since the law could wind up being a paper law that results in no change at all.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Why do you think it violates (not one, but) two amendments?

I don't believe it violates the first amendment, andI don't understand the fifth (which is more than just pleading it) well enough, so I can only bet on the two. Unreasonable search and serizure which has been discussed in this thread, and equal protection. In practice, illegals may not be able to do anything, but LEGAL immigrants and naturalized citizens CAN, and already have. I don't know if this does in fact violate these amendments, but I will bet it is overturned either way.

Dispassionate analysis: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20263

Cases against:
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/042910_ecobar_1070/
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizona-immigration-law.html
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/co...enges-to-arizona-immigration-law-sb-1070.html

An interesting take:
http://www.kgun9.com/global/story.asp?s=12391093

In defending the law to KGUN9 News on Tuesday, the bill's sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) made an even stronger statement. He wrote, "This bill 'prohibits' racial profiling."

Is that the case?

Not precisely. The bill does not allow police to stop or detain someone based solely on race. But nor does it spell out the conditions under which police may stop someone.

A study of the plain wording of the actual law shows that it does contain the language the governor references. The law states, "A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."

So how will police know when to start questioning someone about their immigration status? The law only says the officer must have "reasonable suspicion." But it doesn't define it.

In signing the bill, Governor Brewer attempted to address that problem. She issued a separate executive order that requires the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training board to come up with standards, and to implement a training program for them. The executive order specifies, "The course of training established by the Board shall provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and shall make clear that an individual's race, color or national origin alone cannot be grounds for reasonable suspicion to believe that any law has been violated." The law requires the board to give her a timeline for implementation by May 21.

SB 1070's supporters also point out that the language of the bill mirrors similar federal statutes, and that racial profiling is illegal under existing law. Arizona state statutes do not directly address racial profiling issues. However, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. And the Fourteenth Amendment gives everyone the right to equal protection under the law.

But the authors of SB 1070 went to the trouble to insert language into the law specifically allowing officers to pull over anyone suspected of violating traffic laws. The clause reads,"NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION."

Will this clause allow police to question someone's immigration status and possibly detain that person on the basis of something as minor as broken tail light? Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik thinks so. That debate rages on.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I think it would be a fair wager. Perhaps 50/50.

The law looks constitutional, but it doesn't spell out what criteria is going to be used to determine reasonable suspicion.

That criteria has to be substantial enough that delaying a natural born citizen or an illegal immigrant would be a very rare event. It doesn't take much inconvenience of legal citizens to get the law struck down.

The criteria has to be effective in apprehending illegal immigrants in order to be worth even rare instances of delaying legal citizens. A bare minimum standard would be that more illegal immigrants are investigated than legal citizens - a low standard if stopping of legal citizens is a very rare event. A better standard would be to make a substantial dent in the number of illegal immigrants.

I think it's going to be a big challenge to balance both requirements. Procedures that will make apprehend enough illegal immigrants to be worth it will tend to result in more legal citizens being stopped. Procedures that prevent stopping legal citizens will take the teeth out of the law and result in almost no illegal immigrants being stopped.

I admit I'll be surprised if they find a balance that works, but a 50/50 wager is still reasonable since the law could wind up being a paper law that results in no change at all.

Very well! I bet you 50/50 odds on a piece of "Unobtanium". ;)

 

[BobG]

Very well! I bet you 50/50 odds on a piece of "Unobtanium". ;)

It only takes one community to figure out a plan that works. Just as several communities trying to implement random vehicle stops for various reasons had their plans struck down by the court, it only took one community to come up with a plan for sobriety check points that passed the USSC in order for other communities to have an example to follow.

This is still going to be a lot tougher to establish reasonable suspicion of immigration status than drunkeness.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

It only takes one community to figure out a plan that works. Just as several communities trying to implement random vehicle stops for various reasons had their plans struck down by the court, it only took one community to come up with a plan for sobriety check points that passed the USSC in order for other communities to have an example to follow.

This is still going to be a lot tougher to establish reasonable suspicion of immigration status than drunkeness.

It is funny you say this, I was just reading in a funny (grain of salt) book "Super Freakonomics" and they talk about 1 arrest made for every 27,000 miles driven drunk, with checkpoints. It says something about that balance you mentioned being so hard to achieve.

 

[WhoWee]

It is funny you say this, I was just reading in a funny (grain of salt) book "Super Freakonomics" and they talk about 1 arrest made for every 27,000 miles driven drunk, with checkpoints. It says something about that balance you mentioned being so hard to achieve.

I wonder how many people emerge from sobriety checkpoints with a ticket for something OTHER than DUI - tail light, seat belt, insurance card, suspensions or fines?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What is there to overturn? The law doesn't have anything in it that is new. In fact, I really only reinforces federal laws that already exist. This law is 100% constitutional.

It goes against established precedent on its face.

"Reasonable suspicion" has been decided by the USSC to not allow the request of anything more than a persons name, not even an ID. This law specifically states that it allows a probe into ones citizenship status based solely on reasonable suspicion. That seems to go well beyond asking one for their name or even an ID. So it violates the unreasonable search and seizure clause as defined by the court in its very wording.

The court has decided that if the practical application of a law ultimately tends to single out a particular race then it violates the equal protection clause. I can not think of any way that this law will not primarily target hispanics. Unless officers apply the law equally to all persons and check all persons citizenship status under the same conditions then it will be found to violate the equal protection clause. It may even be considered to violate equal protection if hispanics are the primary subjects of investigation regardless of whether or not the law applies the same standard to all persons.

There is also an issue of the law seeking to allow AZ itself to prosecute illegal aliens as "trespassers". I am uncertain what the precedent is involving states attempting to prosecute what is technically a federal crime, but I am fairly sure that this one is at least on thin ice. edit: This could also constitute double jeopardy.

 

[Char. Limit]

Sorry, Statutory, but I feel this need to argue one particular point...

My view has always been that equal protection of the law applies to intent, not result. If it can be proven that the AZ police really did act fairly to all races and didn't engage in racial profiling, why on Earth would we strike down the law anyway based on the idea of "if more Hispanics are deported, regardless of police fairness, this law must go"?

Also, pass the marshmallows. I smell a firestorm starting in Arizona.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Being from Southern California, I can certainly sympathize with the intent of the Arizona law, but I see no way to justify the "suspicion of being illegal" bit. In fact, it sounds laughable to me! No way can this stand. I doubt that even the Arizona Governer believes it will stand. More likely it is a political maneuver intended to impress voters that everything possible is being done.

I think the correct approach has already been used at the municipal level. Require proof of citizenship or legal residency, if a person wishes to rent or buy a house, or get a job. Perhaps these laws have been struck down, but it has been reported in recent years that the strategy worked at the local level.

If you want to enforce the law, start arresting the people who knowing contract illegal labor from street corners every day. This is why we have a problem in the first place - the jobs! Why doesn't this happen? Could it be that this is overlooked because the offenders are white?

The fact is that big [and small] business wants illegal labor. That is the root of the problem. That is why I have never believed the Republicans really want to solve this problem.

I have an uncle in Huntington Beach, California. When he needs labor, say when he is remodeling his home, he goes to the nearest designated corner and hires some illegals. It is just a part of everyday life. Change that and you will affect real change.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sorry, Statutory, but I feel this need to argue one particular point...

My view has always been that equal protection of the law applies to intent, not result. If it can be proven that the AZ police really did act fairly to all races and didn't engage in racial profiling, why on Earth would we strike down the law anyway based on the idea of "if more Hispanics are deported, regardless of police fairness, this law must go"?

Also, pass the marshmallows. I smell a firestorm starting in Arizona.

I only mention it as a possibility. If the law in itself is not discriminatory, and even if the procedural application is not discriminatory, it is still possible that the context of its application may be. Such as running these investigations on persons at DUI or DWI check points that seem to be concentrated in primarily hispanic neighbourhoods.

*passes marshmallows*

 

[Char. Limit]

If you want to enforce the law, start arresting the people who knowing contract illegal labor from street corners every day. This is why we have a problem in the first place - the jobs! Why doesn't this happen? Could it be that this is overlooked because the offenders are white?

Why does it seem that every time a bill is created, this issue arises? Just hearing the bolded phrase makes me want to go against you, Ivan. And it's not even because I think it's untrue (although I do)... I just tire of hearing it. The phrase, not the meaning, shuts my mind down and tells me, "This thing I've heard 25,448,452.962 times before, I don't like hearing it. I should be against the person bringing it up."

Sorry Ivan, and remember, it's not you I'm against. It's the phrase.

Also, thanks for the marshmallows, Statutory. I was running low.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, have you ever encountered an acceptable answer?

Personally, I'm sick of hearing people complain about illegals when we keep inviting them here. If immigration laws were strickly enforced against employers, we wouldn't have nearly the problem we do. It used to be just the service industries ,mainly unskilled labor and agriculture, but now illegals are displacing skilled workers, esp in construction [so much for the "ignorant illegals" conjecture!].

Illegal immigrants are union busters. Could that have anything to do with the problem?

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't think there's an acceptable answer to a "Could it be..." question except for the answer that the questioner agrees with. And for me, that differs from issue to issue.

 

[Meghan222]

I just want to state that YES you do have to be in violation of a law to be questioned. Speeding, crossing in the middle of the road (which here in Tucson is a HUGE issue). It doesn't give the police authority to harrass anyone they please. And bare in mind "Illegals" are not just from Mexico. Although of course Mexico being almost literally in my back yard it does tend to be that way. What they don't report on other station is why this is being done, and why retaliation is being shown by people, irronically of certain groups. I am not talking races, although La raza (meaning the race) is one of the groups. The people that are protesting are illegals and members of groups like SEIU. But the news (other than maybe fox) doesn't talk about that. Like that a citizen here just outside of Tucson was shot point blank, on his land by an illegal, because he not only refused to give them water, but he demanded they get off HIS land. Anyone would agree, unless you are a communist, or communist supporter, that land is ours. If I own it, it's my property to do what I wish. As long as it is according to laws. Anyway that is just one inncodent. Not to mention that Pheonix has the number 1 kidnapping rate in the country number 2 in the WORLD! And why would that be? Then there's the retaliation, Az, governor Jan Brewer was sent, just a couple of days ago a lovely package with, white powder in it. And people complain about the Tea Party goers and how dangerous they are (which they are not). Fact: vast majority of the violence that has happened politically are on the other side of the isle.

 

[Meghan222]

I know the law doesn't allow this, but hypothetically, why would it be a bad thing to randomly ask people for proof of citizenship/resident alien status? And why would that not pass constitutional muster? As I understand it, resident aliens are already required by law to carry their ID with them and show it upon request.

You are correct. If we are pulled over by police, and you don't have your id, you can be arrested in some states (not here in arizona thankfully) and/or ticketed. My observation is that why are people freaking out over this. It was always required that you carry your id. For us all. This is just the consiquences that if you disregard current laws, you will actually have some action taken instead of getting away with it. Which when you live in Tucson you see A LOT! My family's from puerto rico and they had to work really hard to get here. Legally. So why should they work hard when others get in with no hassle at all? Where's the fairness in that. :)