US vs Arizona

[stitch626]

The Justice Department made official Tuesday afternoon what its tribunes have hinted at for the past two months: the federal government will challenge the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial new immigration law and seek an immediate injunction from a federal judge to block the measure's enforcement pending judicial review.

The measure is scheduled to go into effect on July 29. If the judge grants the requested stay, a decision expected within weeks, enforcement of the law could be delayed for years -- even if it is ultimately deemed constitutional.

Among other elements, Arizona's law requires police and other law enforcement officials, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status upon "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the state illegally. The law also makes it a crime for a person not to produce an identification if asked to do so by the police. It broadens the rights of citizens to sue state and local agencies they believe are hindering immigration policies and makes it unlawful for such agencies to have policies that restrict enforcement of federal laws .

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a problem that has been ignored by the Obama administration," Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill wrote Tuesday in an open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. "Arizona's law simply applies state penalties to acts already illegal under federal law."

Holder said in the Justice Department's press release announcing the high-profile litigation that "Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns." But, he added, "diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

Here's the whole article.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/06 ... ation-law/


Personally, I find this whole thing hilarious.

[Mikey]

I still don't understand what the problem is with increased measures against illegal immigration. After all, the whole point of the term is dependent on the word "illegal."

[Sonic Glitch]

I still don't understand what the problem is with increased measures against illegal immigration. After all, the whole point of the term is dependent on the word "illegal."

I don't think people so much mind restricting illegal immigration, I think people are afraid it'll make it easier for racial profiling.

[Nickswitz]

I don't think people so much mind restricting illegal immigration, I think people are afraid it'll make it easier for racial profiling.

Nope not even that, they are worried that the entire law is based on racial profiling, it's not even making it easier, it's making it necessary.

[Lt. Staplic]

The issue here isn't limiting the illegal immigration, it's the fact that at will an officer can demand to see evidence that some random person walking down the street is a US citizen and then there could be repercussions if they can't procure evidence right then and there.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm with Mikey. If you're here legally, what's the issue?

I'd be fine with them checking my background if they pulled me over.

[Sonic Glitch]

I'm with Mikey. If you're here legally, what's the issue?

I'd be fine with them checking my background if they pulled me over.

Ah yes... "Paperz please."

As a legal citizen I know I have nothing to worry about, but my issue is: what's the cause for suspicion? Someone walking funny? Someone has a different skin color? Someone has a democrat/republican/green party bumper sticker? Someone doesn't speak English well? How do you pick out who to ask?

[Tsukiyumi]

How do you pick out who to ask?

Well, since cops automatically f*ck with people who look nervous, that'd be a good place to start, IMO.

[Sonic Glitch]

How do you pick out who to ask?

Well, since cops automatically f*ck with people who look nervous, that'd be a good place to start, IMO.

So say I'm pre-occupied with something, or in a new part of town I've never been in before trying to find someone or someplace i was supposed to be, and I look uncomfortable. Should I be stopped?

For the record, I do believe we should work against illegal immigration, but I believe that work should be concentrated on the border and/or the process by which people come to this country legally.

[Deepcrush]

The law doesn't even say they have to do a back round check. Just that they want you to produce documents that show you're in the US legally. Even then its only while under the enforcement of other laws. For those who don't know, your driver's license counts for this. If you just got pulled over for speeding or you just started a bar fight. You're going to get carded anyways so I don't personally see a problem with this.

As to the whole racial profiling, tough that's life. Cops don't need an excuse for that.

[Vic]

This law is no different than the Federal law that says the same thing, California has the same law (how's that for hypocrisy).

[Tyyr]

Well first off, a cop can't just stop you on the street for the hell of it and demand your ID. They have to have a reason to do it. Now you can argue that cops could start making up reasons to stop you but the law's pretty clear, a cop can't hassle you or make you do anything without a good reason and in the case of this law just being brown isn't enough of a reason. You have to be doing something else to get the cops on you and then they can demand to see your ID.

As for the racial profiling. Allow me to be a bastard here but given that we're talking about Arizona here wouldn't it stand to reason that most of the illegal immigrants are going to be Hispanic? I'm all for the equality thing but lets stop kidding ourselves.

This law is no different than the Federal law that says the same thing, California has the same law (how's that for hypocrisy).

Yeah but they don't enforce it. That's the issue here. It's not that the law is wrong, just that the Fed says Arizona is trying to appropriate powers that the Fed says only it can have.

[Tsukiyumi]

Well first off, a cop can't just stop you on the street for the hell of it and demand your ID.

You're kidding, right?

1) Yes, they can. Probable cause died years ago.

2) If necessary, they'll just make something up.

You don't have a lot of experience dealing with police, do you?

[Mikey]

Technically a cop can only ask for ID under this law if involved in some other law enforcement. In practice, however... NJ's seat belt law means yo can't technically get pulled over with lack of a a seat belt as the reason, but that, "Oh, I thought you had a light out" gets used quite a bit. The vaunted NYPD just released the new "stop-and-frisk" statistics.

As for profiling... yeah, it sucks. But if you think that this lawis the beginning of racial profiling, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Tsukiyumi]

In practice, however...

Exactly.