Violation of Arizona law to be illegally in the US!

[Coito ergo sum]

Eric Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized.

He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... riticized/

Sheesh...the Attorney flippin' General...opines on the constitutionality of a law without reading it? Weird.

[Martok]

[Svartalf]

"Strict interpretation" vs. "Loose interpretation". Old news.

No no....not at all....it's not that simple.

Many "strict constructionists" would say that the federal government has the power to regulate immigration, even though the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about it! And, strict constructionists would normally say that the 10th Amendment leaves any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and to the people. A true strict constructionist would need to say that it is the STATES that have the right to regulate immigration! Yet, it's the strict constructionist conservatives who tend to want a strong, pervasive FEDERAL regulation of immigration - like federal walls -- federal criminal prosecutions and deportations, etc.

A "loose constructionist" is required in order to vest the federal government with the power to regulate immigration. We have to examine "inherent powers" of a national government, and combine provisions in the Constitution to "interpret" them to include various powers like immigration regulation.

A loose constructionist may or may not, however, conclude that State governments do not have the power to regulate immigration into their state from outside the country. Why can't Arizona have its own immigration law, for example?

This is a far more thorny and complex issue than a standard "conservatives/strict construction" vs. "liberal/living document" polarity.

Except that immigration laws don't logically or rationally enter into the field of what's covered by the tenth... If they did, that would basically mean that immigration rules vary from state to state and that a legal immigrant in a given one still has to go through the full red tape to move in another part of the Union... which is in and of itself an unacceptable restriction to the even more basic personal right of free circulation.

So, even if the constitution never spoke of it (did the writing team even think that immigration might one day become an issue subject to the need of regulation?), it's more than obvious to anybody with half a brain that such regulations must be made at the federal level and that letting individual states create their own rules on the matter is about as stupid as prayi_ng and expecting a miracle to happen in response.

[Svartalf]

When England ejects the Anglo-Saxons back to Germany and Holland, we'll talk about it.

I love how the United States even having an immigration law at all is somehow wrong...because people 35,000 years ago, and 400 years ago came here, that somehow means that now the doors need to be just left wide open with no restrictions.

I've been advocating that for decades... Celtic Britain, Bàs lé Sassenachaigh

[Svartalf]

And, no European has any business criticizing the US for "messing with" other nations in the world. The Europeans made an art form of it. So, if you're from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, or Holland, please, don't lecture the United States. It's unbecoming.

If you're likening our former colonial policies with the massive campaigns of destabilisation, black ops, and messing with democratically elected or simply innocent (of the crimes they were charged with) regimes that the US has become infamous for... I'll have to wonder whether you are a closet immortal, because such an opinion/debating trick so impugns on your mental faculties that I can't believe you learned the Latin found so cogently in your name and sig as a second language (or did you just use babelfish?)

[Svartalf]

Make your case: compare the Arizona law with Nazi law. Let's see how they compare.

"I want to see your papers"

Last time you got pulled over by the cops for a speeding ticket, did he ask you for your "license, registration and insurance?"

The law does not allow cops to just walk up to people and ask for "papers." That's the lie that's being propagated.

The law simply makes what is already illegal under federal law, illegal under Arizona law, and gives police officers the power to verify a person's immigration status if the person is already stopped because of another offense (speeding, drugs, another crime, etc.), AND if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person may not be lawfully present in the US. That "reasonable suspicion" is the same standard that has been used by police officers in the US for 50 years to determine when they can lawfully "stop and frisk" a US citizen (and ask for identification in that instance as well).

Now that you know it's not "I want to see your papers, " what is wrong with the Arizona law?

Well... traffic violations ARE a legal motive for asking all those things
But in Az, being brown skinned now constitutes "probable cause" for checking your ID...

can't you perceive a difference? or maybe you're engaging in histrionics because you were laughed out of the debate club in high school?

[Coito ergo sum]

So, even if the constitution never spoke of it (did the writing team even think that immigration might one day become an issue subject to the need of regulation?), it's more than obvious to anybody with half a brain that such regulations must be made at the federal level and that letting individual states create their own rules on the matter is about as stupid as prayi_ng and expecting a miracle to happen in response.

The State of Arizona is not creating its own rules on the matter. It is merely enforcing the federal law.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, no European has any business criticizing the US for "messing with" other nations in the world. The Europeans made an art form of it. So, if you're from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, or Holland, please, don't lecture the United States. It's unbecoming.

If you're likening our former colonial policies with the massive campaigns of destabilisation, black ops, and messing with democratically elected or simply innocent (of the crimes they were charged with) regimes that the US has become infamous for...

No, I'm not "likening" them. The Europoean colonial powers just invaded, conquered and controlled under despotic colonial governorships most of Asia and Africa, not to mention North and South America. You don't think Britain and France engaged in massive campaigns of destabilization, black ops, etc.? Do you know who drew the map of the middle east? Who created Iraq, Jordan, etc.? Who held Indochina up until 1954-ish?

Let's just look at Africa:



Who did these countries gain independence from?

I'll have to wonder whether you are a closet immortal, because such an opinion/debating trick so impugns on your mental faculties that I can't believe you learned the Latin found so cogently in your name and sig as a second language (or did you just use babelfish?)

[Svartalf]

So, even if the constitution never spoke of it (did the writing team even think that immigration might one day become an issue subject to the need of regulation?), it's more than obvious to anybody with half a brain that such regulations must be made at the federal level and that letting individual states create their own rules on the matter is about as stupid as prayi_ng and expecting a miracle to happen in response.

The State of Arizona is not creating its own rules on the matter. It is merely enforcing the federal law.

Nice try, too bad the joke falls so flat.

If the state were merely transcribing federal law into its own books so that its own law enforcement can go about picking up the feds' slack, it would not mention rules stringent enough that they set a standard no other state (or the federal arm) would even think of demanding, or word it in such a way (especially in the context of how Az police already enforce previous laws) that it is clear that racial profiling will be erected into the new standard for probable cause in enforcing that law, or demand that municipal police forces actively enforce the new law for them.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, even if the constitution never spoke of it (did the writing team even think that immigration might one day become an issue subject to the need of regulation?), it's more than obvious to anybody with half a brain that such regulations must be made at the federal level and that letting individual states create their own rules on the matter is about as stupid as prayi_ng and expecting a miracle to happen in response.

The State of Arizona is not creating its own rules on the matter. It is merely enforcing the federal law.

Nice try, too bad the joke falls so flat.

If the state were merely transcribing federal law into its own books so that its own law enforcement can go about picking up the feds' slack, it would not mention rules stringent enough that they set a standard no other state (or the federal arm) would even think of demanding, or word it in such a way (especially in the context of how Az police already enforce previous laws) that it is clear that racial profiling will be erected into the new standard for probable cause in enforcing that law, or demand that municipal police forces actively enforce the new law for them.

It is not erecting racial profiling into any standard. Quite the opposite. It prohibits racial profiling.

The law allows Arizona state police to check if someone is lawfully in the United States if, in connection with a lawful stop, arrest or detention for some other reason, there is also reasonable suspicion that the person is not lawfully in the United States. They may not base their decision on race. They make that verification by contacting the federal immigration service in accordance with federal statute. Under federal law 8 USC 1373(c): (c) Obligation to respond to inquiries: The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

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 law requires aliens to carry their visas or green cards with them at all times. There is nothing new here. It is a legal requirement for aliens, including Permanent Residents to carry their visas/I-94's/I-94W's and/or Permanent Resident Cards with them at all times. If and only when a Permanent Residence chooses to become a naturalised citizen of America will they relinquish their documents and no longer have to carry it with them. For example, under the "Now that you are a Permanent Resident" heading on the USCIS web site, it states: "The Permanent Resident Card, Form I-551, is issued to all Permanent Residents as evidence of alien registration and their Permanent status in the US. The card must be in your possession at all times."

So, they are required to carry this documentation with them under federal law. If they don't have the documentation with them, when they are back at the police station, the police can verify with the immigration service what their status is. Since not carrying the proper documents is, and for many decades has been, federal law, there is nothing wrong with being asked for it when they are being stopped for lawful reasons in the first place and there is reasonable suspicion that they may be unlawfully present.

There is no additional, or more stringent, requirement being imposed. If you think there is an additional or more stringent requirement imposed, then please, by all means, state what it is. Let's discuss it.

[Trolldor]

They may not base their decision on race.

lawl. They have no choice but to base it on race.

[Coito ergo sum]

They may not base their decision on race.

lawl. They have no choice but to base it on race.

That's simply not true. They can base it on non-racial factors, just as "reasonable suspicion" for a stop by police officers is based on non-racial factors all the time. "Reasonable suspicion" has been the mandated test for the legitimacy of a police stop in the US since the Supreme Court mandated it many decades ago. See Terry v Ohio ("articulable facts" and "reasonable to assume" test - aka "reasonable suspicion" test). The Fourth Amendment as construed in Terry already requires that the police officer have an articulable reasonable suspicion of crime to make the initial stop. The new Arizona law adds an additional twist: If, after the initial stop, the officer develops a further reasonable suspicion that the detainee is an undocumented immigrant, the officer then must take steps to ascertain the detainee's immigration status.

Examples of reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence:

1. A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
2. A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
3. A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
4. A person running away when approached by law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights and siren.

Non-citizens are and have been required to carry their visas/I-94s/I-94W's and/or green cards on them. That's the law. It's illegal for them NOT to have it on them. The new state law requires (1) a lawful stop for non-immigration reasons, and (2) reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence. Then what happens is the officer will verify with the US immigration service the status of the individual in question. If the individual is not lawfully present, they can be handed over to federal authorities.

What's wrong with that?

[Hermit]

They may not base their decision on race.

lawl. They have no choice but to base it on race.

That's simply not true. They can base it on non-racial factors, just as "reasonable suspicion" for a stop by police officers is based on non-racial factors all the time. "Reasonable suspicion" has been the mandated test for the legitimacy of a police stop in the US since the Supreme Court mandated it many decades ago.

Excellent. That reminds me of a law forbidding people to sleep under the bridges of the Seine. It is of course not at all discriminatory against the poor. No matter if you are a Rothschild or a clochard, if you are caught you will be arrested.

[Coito ergo sum]

They may not base their decision on race.

lawl. They have no choice but to base it on race.

That's simply not true. They can base it on non-racial factors, just as "reasonable suspicion" for a stop by police officers is based on non-racial factors all the time. "Reasonable suspicion" has been the mandated test for the legitimacy of a police stop in the US since the Supreme Court mandated it many decades ago.

Excellent. That reminds me of a law forbidding people to sleep under the bridges of the Seine. It is of course not at all discriminatory against the poor. No matter if you are a Rothschild or a clochard, if you are caught you will be arrested.

The issue is whether someone is in the country legally -- if they're from a visa waiver country, they will have an I-94W Departure document which states their departure date, if they are visa holder, they will have a visa in their passport with an I-94, and if they are a green card holder they will have a card about the size of a drivers license. Federal law requires they carry these documents with them at all times. For the Arizona police to ask for these documents, which the person is required to carry under federal law, they must have stopped or detained that person in connection with some other offense, and also have formed a reasonable suspicion that the person may not be lawfully present.

With all due respect to France's law against sleeping under bridges, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Hey - if you're upset about this law, you should be really outraged by the Obama administration putting a hit out on a US citizen who is not in a war zone, without charges filed, without a warrant issued, without an arrest or due process, without a trial (not even a military tribunal), without even asking for his "papers."

[Coito ergo sum]

They may not base their decision on race.

lawl. They have no choice but to base it on race.

That's simply not true. They can base it on non-racial factors, just as "reasonable suspicion" for a stop by police officers is based on non-racial factors all the time. "Reasonable suspicion" has been the mandated test for the legitimacy of a police stop in the US since the Supreme Court mandated it many decades ago.

Excellent. That reminds me of a law forbidding people to sleep under the bridges of the Seine. It is of course not at all discriminatory against the poor. No matter if you are a Rothschild or a clochard, if you are caught you will be arrested.

Speaking of France: France has had a national ID card for all citizens since the beginning of World War II in 1940. Some compulsory identity documents were created before for workers from 1803 to 1890, nomads in 1912 and foreigners in 1917 during World War I.

According to Art. 78-2 of the French Penal Procedure Code ID checks are possible[14] :
alineas 1 & 2 : if you are the object of inquiries or investigations, have committed, prepared or attempted to commit an offence, a misdemeanour or a felony or if you are able to give informations about it (contrôle judiciaire)[15] ;
alinea 4 : until 20 km from the french borders and in the ports, airports and railway stations open to international traffic (contrôle aux frontières)[16] ;
alinea 3 : whatever the person's behaviour, to prevent a breach of public order and in particular an offence against the safety of persons or property (contrôle administratif)

Those racist bastards!

They don't even need "reasonable suspicion" that a person is not lawfully present.

Not sure why there's no comment about the French mandatory national ID card, which can be checked by police without reasonable suspicion in connection with "inquiries or investigations."

Oh, yeah - Arizona is a Nazi-esque place where we're going to have people saying "let me see your papers" with hokey German accents....but, the Arizona law is not even as intrusive as French law.... what were you saying about the Seine again?