No to what? Can you identify what in my post you are disagreeing with? You go on to say this:NineOneFour wrote:No,Coito ergo sum wrote:This is going to be subject, for sure, to federal court litigation because the federal government, I believe, claims that it "preempts the field" of legislation regarding immigration.Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.
This is a thorny issue, however, because a "little known fact" (as Cliff Clavin used to say) is that there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives the federal government the authority, let alone the sole authority, to regulate immigration. Here's the Constitution - check for yourself - http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution - most people, left and right and center alike, assume that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to make laws about immigration - but, it's not in there. Not a peep about it.
The Supreme Court of the US weighed in in 1889 in Chae Chan Ping v. United States, where the SCOTUS said that the Congress had the inherent power to exclude aliens if it wanted to, because the preservation of US independence and security were the highest duties of the federal government, all other things being subordinate. The exclusion of aliens falls within this ambit. But, again, that's just what the Supreme Court said - it had no Constitutional basis for it. But, it also did not rule that states could also not make it illegal under state law to be in a State illegally.
So, what's the deal here - can Arizona make it an offense under Arizona law, and arrest people, who are not lawfully present in the State of Arizona?
However, you're responding to my post, wherein I made the following assertions: (1) this is going to be the topic of litigation based on federal preemption of the field (supremacy clause) - and, in fact, that is PRECISELY the basis for the Justice Department's suit - NOT RACISM; (2) the Constitution doesn't enumerate immigration as a federal power, or a state power, (3) The Supreme Court held that the federal government did have the "inherent" power to exclude aliens, but did not rule that the states did not have the power to do the same thing or enforce federal immigration law.NineOneFour wrote: all they did was pass feel-good legislation to gin up the racist idiots and act like they give a shit about regular folks who are concerned about immigration.
Then I asked the question "can Arizona make it an offense under Arizona law, and arrest people, who are not lawfully present in the State of Arizona?"
You then answer - "no, [insert hyperbolic diatribe here]" - Why not try tailoring your answers to the post to which your responding. That'll make it sound like you actually read and thought about it, rather than knee-jerk ranted.
Arizona's law is essentially the enforcement of federal law. If a person is lawfully stopped by a police officer for a non-immigration offense, then Arizona says that if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person also may not be lawfully present, then they can ask for the documentation that immigrants and non-immigrant aliens are required to carry with them (visa, green card, I-94, etc.) and they can give a ring to the immigration service to verify lawful status.NineOneFour wrote:
There is only one thing in the Arizona law that isn't in federal law. It's total bullshit.
I love your incisive analysis, though, that "It's total bullshit." Sounds like you really know your stuff.
Pulling people over for no reason is expressly stated in the law as being "illegal." There must be (a) a reason to have pulled someone over or stopped them on the street that doesn't relate to immigration status -- in other words, there must be 'reasonable suspicion' to stop someone just like the police need to stop a U.S. citizen, and then (b) an immigration-based reason to check the visa status - reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence.NineOneFour wrote:
They think they can have police officers check for immigration status and pull people over for no reason.
Sure, there is a big problem in the US, certain towns especially, where driving while brown can get you pulled over quite easily. However, that's a problem irrespective of the type of offense we're talking about. There's a town near my house that is notorious for pulling over black people. I haven't seen statistics, but it certainly is the feeling out there. The fact that laws may be enforced in a discriminatory fashion applies to all laws, and does not mean that we are not allowed to have laws. It means there must be a remedy for people discriminated against, and there must be efforts made to train police officers so that we can try to avoid this as much as possible.NineOneFour wrote:
It's called "driving while brown" and it's not going to fly in an actual court of law, which resides in reality, unlike most politicians, most conservatives, and most Arizonans.
Glad I got out of that damn hellhole.
