Arizona immigration law goes into effect......

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Given the level and cost of services we try to offer to all citizens here, I think its valid to slow down illegal immigration. They are criminals, there is a process if it doesn't work for them, then they are free to risk the consequences (which I think should be more severe).

I agree with all of that, but at some point you really have to sit down and realize how many of these people are filling jobs no Americans are bothering to take, especially in the agriculture industry. There's a need there that will go unfilled if we can magically deport all illegal immigrants.

So, if we're going to put in draconian measures to stop illegal immigration, I think for the good of the country you need to have a good plan to replace all those lost workers.

Otherwise we're just going to be spending billions more either on food itself, or on government subsidies to the agriculture industry so they can raise pay to the point where Americans will take those jobs.

[DaddyTorgo]

Unfortunately that litigation is going to be costly as it works its way up through the system until a federal appeals court throws out the law as unconstitutional (if that's what will happen). But it does bring the issue back into public consciousness.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I agree with all of that, but at some point you really have to sit down and realize how many of these people are filling jobs no Americans are bothering to take, especially in the agriculture industry. There's a need there that will go unfilled if we can magically deport all illegal immigrants.

So, if we're going to put in draconian measures to stop illegal immigration, I think for the good of the country you need to have a good plan to replace all those lost workers.

Otherwise we're just going to be spending billions more either on food itself, or on government subsidies to the agriculture industry so they can raise pay to the point where Americans will take those jobs.

That's where "Guest worker" or "temporary worker" or whatever you want to call them, visas come into play. That way you can control that, and you can also tax those people's pay, and regulate everything a whole lot better.

I don't think people are arguing a "get out and stay out" policy. I think people are arguing for a "stop coming here illegally...work within the system if you want to come to the US" policy, while recognizing that the current policy will need some changes to accomodate say...agricultural migrant workers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I agree with all of that, but at some point you really have to sit down and realize how many of these people are filling jobs no Americans are bothering to take, especially in the agriculture industry. There's a need there that will go unfilled if we can magically deport all illegal immigrants.

Would they go unfilled if the employers were required to pay minimum wage, and other expenses that go with having documented workers? This may be a question for lungs. I find it hard to believe that there's jobs out there than poor, unemployed Americans "won't take". And if so, I feel a lot less sorry for them.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think people are arguing a "get out and stay out" policy.

In this thread? Probably not (though Jon hasn't weighed in on guest worker policies....).

In America? Absolutely. There are plenty of Americans who have no idea how much of our economy is propped up by illegal workers doing jobs for very little money.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In this thread? Probably not (though Jon hasn't weighed in on guest worker policies....).

In America? Absolutely. There are plenty of Americans who have no idea how much of our economy is propped up by illegal workers doing jobs for very little money.

I was referring to this thread. I agree with you as far as "in America" though

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Would they go unfilled if the employers were required to pay minimum wage, and other expenses that go with having documented workers?

That's a slippery issue. There are plenty of jobs that skirt minimum wage by essentially having the workers work on a "contract" basis that pays them per piece. For instance, you get 2 cents per bucket of cherries picked. Or you get 1 buck per room cleaned.

And that's to say nothing about the issue of wages & tips in the service (chiefly food) industry.

I find it hard to believe that there's jobs out there than poor, unemployed Americans "won't take". And if so, I feel a lot less sorry for them.

Economically, you're better off being on welfare than taking one of the above jobs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I find it hard to believe that there's jobs out there than poor, unemployed Americans "won't take".

Um, you shouldn't. Trust me on that one, I know too many examples of it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Economically, you're better off being on welfare than taking one of the above jobs.

I've been learning about this in recent weeks while doing hiring at my current work and exploring options for my future business. It's eye-opening to say the least.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And that's to say nothing about the issue of wages & tips in the service (chiefly food) industry.

FWIW, most illegal immigrants in the food industry work in the kitchen, and so do not receive tips.

It may be a circumvention of minimum wage laws, but it isn't likely that too many illegal immigrants are being abused in those jobs, just younger American citizens.

And even then, I doubt greatly that many tipped positions aren't providing at least $5 an hour in said tips to make up the general difference in wages (most states that don't hold to min wage for food service industry workers pay about $2-3/hr from what I understand).

For instance, I work in a relatively low volume restaurant in a state that does require min wage pay, but even without one cent from wages, I would be making probably $14-18/hr (as it is, it comes out to nearly $25 most nights).

[JPhillips]

AP: "The conflict over a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona intensified Monday as vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows."

?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

?

Was that from the AP or The Onion?

[SportsDino]

If you remove the illegal labor a new equilibrium will be found. It might be a good thing to make agriculture a rewarding job.... it means people are PRODUCING STUFF, rather than just hawking it. There are a lot of positive correlations to the growth of real wealth with real goods produced per worker... even at real wages. China's economy isn't growing because it has slave labor, China's economy grows because it has production, and our desire for slave labor merely results in it getting a disproportionate share of new investment as well.

I wouldn't mind more of the country's money cycling through agriculture rather than sitting in the hands of the finance bigwigs. People with unnatural notions of price rigidity will whine like little bitches, but after adapting the economy will overall be healthier.

But yes, prices will change, when do they not? I'd rather they change because the labor is paid better than price fixing in the department of agriculture or the commodity exchanges.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Economically, you're better off being on welfare than taking one of the above jobs.

Do you have some statistics on this?

The EIC actually gives a lot of incentive to work. Welfare payments are actually really small these days, and almost non-existent if you don't have kids. And if they do have kids, most of those payments are for the kids who shouldn't be punished for having irresponsible parents.

I know there is this meme floating around that welfare recepients are living the good life, but with the reforms in the 90's, it's just not true.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

If you remove the illegal labor a new equilibrium will be found. It might be a good thing to make agriculture a rewarding job.... it means people are PRODUCING STUFF, rather than just hawking it. There are a lot of positive correlations to the growth of real wealth with real goods produced per worker... even at real wages. China's economy isn't growing because it has slave labor, China's economy grows because it has production, and our desire for slave labor merely results in it getting a disproportionate share of new investment as well.

I wouldn't mind more of the country's money cycling through agriculture rather than sitting in the hands of the finance bigwigs. People with unnatural notions of price rigidity will whine like little bitches, but after adapting the economy will overall be healthier.

But yes, prices will change, when do they not? I'd rather they change because the labor is paid better than price fixing in the department of agriculture or the commodity exchanges.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so don't take this an attack, but Chinese subsistence farmers would be thrilled to be able to make the money of illegals in the U.S.

[RainMaker]

I guess this is an issue I fall on the more conservative side of things. Sure there are people who are using this law to promote their racism and that's wrong, but ultimately the law to me isn't bad.

If you are in this country illegally, you're in it illegally. You are probably not paying all the taxes you are supposed to and using resources you aren't supposed to. Now I'm all for ways to get these people in legally and have them paying in their fair share and helping provide cheap labor to the companies that need it. But it needs to be done legally.

And perhaps there is some potential abuse that could occur, but nothing different than what we already see. The laws we have in place right now don't stop police brutality or racial profiling. And even if they did, I don't see how making someone prove they are here legally is a bad thing. We ask for a drivers license when we pull someone over. They'll ask you to prove you aren't drunk if you look it.

So basically I want to do it for the tax and security aspects. I'm not concerned about those who whine that illegals take away jobs.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I don;t get why a nation a rich as America can;t allow a few extra people in the country each year and has to be such a dick with immigration, when we are supposed to be that Light on a Hill to everyone.

We're rich? I didn't know being trillions of dollars in debt is rich.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not sure what you mean here, so don't take this an attack, but Chinese subsistence farmers would be thrilled to be able to make the money of illegals in the U.S.

Yes, I'm sure they would.

I had a longer post I scrapped and apparently bits of it stuck around. I think I'm anticipating the 'slave wages are necessary for the economy' argument, and jumped the gun on beating it to death (as I tend to do to faulty economics).

[illinifan999]

Here's the point of view from an ICE agent on another forum.

Before the law:

John Q Law conducts a vehicle stop based on PC (probable cause) for a moving violation. Law develops RS (reasonable suspicion) the occupants are in the US illegally and subsequently notifies ICE or Border Patrol (Feds). The Feds ask how many, and he replies “8”. Law hears silence on the other end of the phone. Law sites driver for speeding and lets them go.

After the law:

John Q Law conducts a vehicle stop based on PC for a moving violation. Law develops RS the occupants are in the US illegally and subsequently notifies ICE or Border Patrol (Feds). The Feds verify the immigration status and inform the officer 7 passengers are in the US illegally and the driver is a Permanent Resident Alien. Law subsequently calls for backup, arrests the 7 occupants for Trespassing under the new bill and charges the driver with Human Smuggling. He also notifies the feds so the suspects will have an immigration detainer and subsequently be deported after serving state time and/or paying their fine.

[DaddyTorgo]

See - that sounds really good from that POV.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I had a longer post I scrapped and apparently bits of it stuck around. I think I'm anticipating the 'slave wages are necessary for the economy' argument, and jumped the gun on beating it to death (as I tend to do to faulty economics).

FWIW, the lowest paid immigrant workers I have are paid over $10/hour and we house them for free and furnish the houses. So depending on how much you think a house is worth, our wages are very much in line with local factories and such.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Here's the point of view from an ICE agent on another forum.

That part I could live with, but that's hardly the extent of the law. Imagine that stop, but also nothing being done on the road two miles over. Minuteman sues the town for a policy of not stopping illegals on that road. The town now has to divert more police resources to cover both roads immediately or face 1k to 5k fines per day plus all attorney fees if a judge eventually agrees with the plaintiff.

Or imagine the car with US citizens of Mexican descent. The driver can produce a license, but the other passengers don't have ID on them. The investigating officer now has to hold the family in detention until they can prove citizenship or risk being sued by that same Minuteman.

If this law was a secondary offense without the citizen enforcement angle I could live with it, but as it's written it almost guarantees abuse.

edit: I'd also be much more comfortable if AZ required everyone to have ID at all times. It's the same civil liberty intrusion, but at least it's being applied equally.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: I'd also be much more comfortable if AZ required everyone to have ID at all times. It's the same civil liberty intrusion, but at least it's being applied equally.

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if this is not going to just be where we eventually end up. Where everyone has to carry their "papers" as something out of the 1980s Communist Block.

This is honestly a tough issue that I'm not sure there are any clear winners. As many know, my wife was born in South America and legally immigrated here and became a U.S. Citizen as a teenager. The ideal path that others should take if they want to enter the country. The issue is she says it is actually very difficult and very time consuming to do so, which is what leads to so much of the illegal immigrants we see today.

Perhaps if we improve the process on how foreigners can legally immigrate, they would help cut down on the number of illegal immigrants, but I don't think that will ever fully solve the problem. I just don't see a way to fairly fix the problem entirely that does not discriminate against U.S. Citizens like my wife without just applying it across the board to everyone.

It feels very un-American to me to think of having to always carry your "papers" but I can't think of any great solution to this one.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Alan T

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if this is not going to just be where we eventually end up. Where everyone has to carry their "papers" as something out of the 1980s Communist Block.

This is honestly a tough issue that I'm not sure there are any clear winners. As many know, my wife was born in South America and legally immigrated here and became a U.S. Citizen as a teenager. The ideal path that others should take if they want to enter the country. The issue is she says it is actually very difficult and very time consuming to do so, which is what leads to so much of the illegal immigrants we see today.

Perhaps if we improve the process on how foreigners can legally immigrate, they would help cut down on the number of illegal immigrants, but I don't think that will ever fully solve the problem. I just don't see a way to fairly fix the problem entirely that does not discriminate against U.S. Citizens like my wife without just applying it across the board to everyone.

It feels very un-American to me to think of having to always carry your "papers" but I can't think of any great solution to this one.

Your wife is awesome

[RainMaker]

I'm confused. Is the law saying that they can pull anyone over who they suspect of being here illegally? Or is it saying that they can check on immigration status if they pull you over for something else?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm confused. Is the law saying that they can pull anyone over who they suspect of being here illegally? Or is it saying that they can check on immigration status if they pull you over for something else?

The standard is "lawful contact", so you don't even have to have been doing anything wrong. As in the example I gave above, an investigation in a hispanic neighborhood would certainly qualify as lawful contact.

And the law doesn't say "can". It says "shall".

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The standard is "lawful contact", so you don't even have to have been doing anything wrong. As in the example I gave above, an investigation in a hispanic neighborhood would certainly qualify as lawful contact.

And the law doesn't say "can". It says "shall".

Well, you need lawful conduct AND reasonable suspicion that somebody is illegal. Race alone isn't enough for reasonable suspicion. We'd have to see how this would play out in the caselaw to see exactly how much is enough (though we probably won't get a chance to get that far).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, you need lawful conduct AND reasonable suspicion that somebody is illegal. Race alone isn't enough for reasonable suspicion. We'd have to see how this would play out in the caselaw to see exactly how much is enough (though we probably won't get a chance to get that far).

Well what other reasonable suspicion is there besides race?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well what other reasonable suspicion is there besides race?

It's tough to know since there's not much caselaw, but off the top of my head:

-proximity to border, particularly if there's no "legitimate" reason to be in that particular area
-inability to speak English
-admissions (he might say something to indicate he's illegal)
-lacking any identfying documents
-after a lawful traffic stop for speeding or something, the feds indicate via radio that the guy is illegal.
-the officer dealt with him before and knows he's illegal.
-When someone is stopped for traffic offense (or any crime), an officer runs the suspect's warrant history and criminal record, which indicates he's illegal (it would show prior immigration holds and detentions).
-stolen car
-van with an unusual number of people in it, or a truck that it appears people have been living in for some time.

No one of these things is necessarily enough (except for getting actual information that a guy's illegal, which would probably be the most common use of this statute), but some combination of these things would get you there. Race alone, no way, non-English speaker alone, no way, lack of documents alone, no way, all of those three things together - probably still no way, but add in some other information, and you're getting closer.

And I agree that you can't require an officer to enforce any law, at any time. Officers need discretion. I know people generally think that's unfair, and many probably change that opinion in circumstances such as this.

[RainMaker]

Some of those things you listed still use race as the primary reason for suspicion. They aren't pulling over a van with an unusual number of white people in it. And they aren't pulling over a blonde haired, blue eyed woman because she was in close proximity to the border.

Just seems like the law should be much more specific as to when a cop has a right to look into it further. It seems like its way too open for abuse and with our nation's history of law enforcement and racial issues, that's not a good thing. I'm fine with laws that get rid of those who are here illegally, but I'm not down with a law that lets a cop pull over every van full of dark skinned people to check their immigration status.

[JPhillips]

But this law doesn't give the officers discretion. As soon as an officer fails to be adequately suspicious for the tastes of the most rabid anti-immigrants in AZ they'll be able to file a lawsuit claiming a policy of not fully enforcing federal immigration laws.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But this law doesn't give the officers discretion. As soon as an officer fails to be adequately suspicious for the tastes of the most rabid anti-immigrants in AZ they'll be able to file a lawsuit claiming a policy of not fully enforcing federal immigration laws.

That is NOT what the law says. The law says that the state, county, and cities may enforce federal immigration laws, and if someone tries to stop them from doing so, they may be sued. It doesn't allow someone to sue the cop for failing to pull someone over, it allows someone to sue if a different agency blocks the cop from arresting the folks in the van once he knows they are illegals. Reads to me like if a city decides to implement a policy of not checking immigration status during a traffic stop (and checking immigration status is being done now), then they can be sued. But it requires an explicit policy that interferes with the intent here (that the local municipalities are no longer depending on the federal government to enforce the existing immigration laws):

Originally Posted by law

A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

You're going way too far with the lawsuit part.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That is NOT what the law says. The law says that the state, county, and cities may enforce federal immigration laws, and if someone tries to stop them from doing so, they may be sued. It doesn't allow someone to sue the cop for failing to pull someone over, it allows someone to sue if a different agency blocks the cop from arresting the folks in the van once he knows they are illegals. Reads to me like if a city decides to implement a policy of not checking immigration status during a traffic stop (and checking immigration status is being done now), then they can be sued. But it requires an explicit policy that interferes with the intent here (that the local municipalities are no longer depending on the federal government to enforce the existing immigration laws):



You're going way too far with the lawsuit part.

The problem is it doesn't say anything about another agency or person stopping them. Adopting a policy is so vague that courts are going to have to define it over time. Does refusal to investigate every call mean a policy has been established? Has an officer adopted a policy because he doesn't stop vans with large numbers of Hispanics? The law doesn't define policy, so it's completely unclear what it means. Eventually the courts will set some guidelines, but the whole purpose of that section is to force local authorities to be more strict in enforcement than they might choose on their own.

I know the legal advice my Dad would have given the town where he was city attorney, be extraordinarily strict in enforcement because a small town can't afford a lawsuit.

[molson]

Unfortunately, the law doesn't go into effect for a few months, so we won't be able to evaluate whether doomsday predictions of mass lawsuits and nights of broken glass are accurate for a while, if ever....Perhaps that lead time will calm everything down, and people will barely notice a change when it goes into effect.

Until then, bring on the propoganda! I see that "latino leaders" are already comparing this to "apartheid in South Africa and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II." So we're off to a good start.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...aw-passed.html

[gstelmack]

I am reminded of when Florida revamped their gun control laws and forgot to make open carry illegal as part of it. There was all this talk of the "Wild West" and whatnot, just like here. The reality was that it was still illegal to actually shoot someone, so nothing materialized other than a day or so of folks wearing guns around just because they could.

All this law says is "Arizona will no longer rely on the federal government to take illegal aliens into custody and deport them". And the clause everyone is up in arms about is just an attempt to prevent municipalities from opting out. Most of the fears being presented here remain illegal (reasons for stopping, etc). As was pointed out much earlier, all this means is the arresting officer has more options than calling the feds and letting them deal with it. It doesn't change the reasons for the stops, it changes the allowed actions AFTER the stop.

[JPhillips]

No, it actually says this:

16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

The problem, as I see it, is the nature of reasonable suspicion and the meaning of full extent permitted by federal law. I don't think either of these would be nearly as problematic without the citizen enforcement angle, but the way that section is written encourages frivolous lawsuits because a win means the government pays all the bills. Hell, if I were running a group against this measure I might look at filing lawsuits simply to gum up the system and force the legislature to revisit that section.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by law

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

In other words, WHEN THEY'VE ALREADY MADE A STOP. It says NOTHING about stopping folks just to check their immigration status, it says when you've already pulled them over for something, then check it. Which they are already doing, they just can't do anything right now if the check fails. Again, this makes it illegal for someone to stop the ALREADY IN EXISTENCE practice of checking immigration on a traffic stop. It does not increase nor require a change in when folks are stopped.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

In other words, WHEN THEY'VE ALREADY MADE A STOP. It says NOTHING about stopping folks just to check their immigration status, it says when you've already pulled them over for something, then check it. Which they are already doing, they just can't do anything right now if the check fails. Again, this makes it illegal for someone to stop the ALREADY IN EXISTENCE practice of checking immigration on a traffic stop. It does not increase nor require a change in when folks are stopped.

A traffic stop isn't the only form of lawful contact. There has always been a delineation between what police can do when conducting a traffic stop versus plain foot patrol.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

In other words, WHEN THEY'VE ALREADY MADE A STOP. It says NOTHING about stopping folks just to check their immigration status, it says when you've already pulled them over for something, then check it. Which they are already doing, they just can't do anything right now if the check fails. Again, this makes it illegal for someone to stop the ALREADY IN EXISTENCE practice of checking immigration on a traffic stop. It does not increase nor require a change in when folks are stopped.

You keep arguing that this is about a secondary offense on a traffic stop, but that isn't what the bill says. I'd assume that case law in AZ has generally defined lawful contact, but regardless of the specifics it's much more broad than traffic stops.

But even if it is just traffic stops, don't police have the obligation to detain anyone in the vehicle who doesn't have proper ID on their person? Don't they risk being sued if they don't?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by cartman

A traffic stop isn't the only form of lawful contact. There has always been a delineation between what police can do when conducting a traffic stop versus plain foot patrol.

I know, it's just the focus of the debate here. The point is the bill does nothing to change what the law enforcement officer does up until the point where he receives immigration information from the Feds, it only changes what happens after he receives that data.

[JPhillips]

But how do you request information from the feds? Don't you have to ask for ID? And what happens to a person who doesn't have ID?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I know, it's just the focus of the debate here. The point is the bill does nothing to change what the law enforcement officer does up until the point where he receives immigration information from the Feds, it only changes what happens after he receives that data.

But the change is that the questions that were (and historically have been) asked during a traffic stop (suspicion of some sort of moving violation) are now going to be allowed for the foot patrols, where there the suspicion could just be the color of the skin.

Lawful contact doesn't require the suspicion of a crime or civil violation in progress. Lawful contact could be the police talking to someone who has reported a crime. So instead of first gathering information about a robbery, the police are going to have to spend time investigating the status of the person who reported the crime.

[miked]

Originally Posted by molson

Unfortunately, the law doesn't go into effect for a few months, so we won't be able to evaluate whether doomsday predictions of mass lawsuits and nights of broken glass are accurate for a while, if ever....Perhaps that lead time will calm everything down, and people will barely notice a change when it goes into effect.

Until then, bring on the propoganda! I see that "latino leaders" are already comparing this to "apartheid in South Africa and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II." So we're off to a good start.

Arizona governor signs immigration law; foes promise fight

Is the thread dead with the nazi reference now? I know it wasn't Hitler, but Godwin's Law says you win.

[Chief Rum]

From reading this thread, IMO, I sense a "chicken little sky is falling" approach from some who oppose the law, because they don't want to see this stand, but I don't think their fears (hopes?) are going to realized on a practical level.

That said, I think the law will be struck down by the courts, either as making lawful contact too broad a reason for enacting this statute, or as a violation of the constitutional rights of the federal government.

All that said, anyone who wants the status quo to go in immigration, you guys are nuts. If this isn't the right way to do it, we need to find the right way and put it in place. Because while New York or Minnesota or Washington might not be hit by this so much, it's having a huge impact in the border states down south.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

But the change is that the questions that were (and historically have been) asked during a traffic stop (suspicion of some sort of moving violation) are now going to be allowed for the foot patrols, where there the suspicion could just be the color of the skin.

Lawful contact doesn't require the suspicion of a crime or civil violation in progress. Lawful contact could be the police talking to someone who has reported a crime. So instead of first gathering information about a robbery, the police are going to have to spend time investigating the status of the person who reported the crime.

Color of skin does not equal reasonable suspicion.

"Lawful contact" is actually a police restricting clause in this statute, not something that gives them more power. With any other crime, you can pull some over or stop them if you have reasonable suspicion that they are committing it. Without that lawful conduct clause, the rules would be the same here - the officer must have reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal ailen. Because of the "lawful conduct" phrase, they have to have the lawful contact FIRST, before they can even think about reasonable suspicion.

Edit: It's similar to many states' seatbelt laws. You can't stop someone for it, but you can cite them if you make "lawful contact" with them in some other way - like if you pull them over for speeding.

[cartman]

There is nothing called "lawful conduct" in the law.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Do you also agree that "lawful contact" would be police responding to the report of a crime?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

There is nothing called "lawful conduct" in the law.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Do you also agree that "lawful contact" would be police responding to the report of a crime?

Typo corrected.

"lawful contact", when used in criminal statutes, puts a restraint on police. For example, if an officer pulls someone over for not having a front license plate, when no front license plate is actually required in that state, that's not a lawful contact. "Lawful contact" is kind of a point in a police/officer interation where everything is still "all good", and no rights have been violated yet. Like if an officer sees something in plain view when he had made "lawful contact" - OK, but if an officer sees something in plain view when he has not made "lawful contact" - no good, whatever he saw in plain view needs to be suppressed.

[molson]

So I just had this whole breakdown of almost every section of the bill, just for fun, because I was trying to figure out this stuff myself, and I lost it all. Oh well.

To sum up though, iI think it's very poorly written legislation. They could have accomplished the same thing with much less confusing language. State legislatures are not known for their writing skills. I don't know why Arizona is completely paranoid about cities/counties doing their own thing and hindering enforcement of this, but they are. And that paranoia is causing them some bad p.r. that they don't really need.

They want to make illegal immigration a state crime (like any other state crime), they want everybody in the state to be on the same page with that, they want to facilitate the sharing of information amongst themselves and with the federal government, and they want to be able to take the illegal immigrants directly to the feds instead of waiting for the feds to come get them.

I think it was all written in a rush and with a lot of emotion (and without a lot of feedback and revisions from actual lawyers). I'm picking up a lot of frustration from Arizona law enforcement officials, and the legislature tried to translate that to these statutes. I think they pretty much failed. It's a crappy statute, in a technical sense. And it's unconstitutional because I don't think states can regulate immigration, and I don't think they can require the feds to take custody of any illegal immigrant that they drop off on their front steps. But I also don't think anybody is going to be arrested for "not having their papers", ect, and nobody can be pulled over soley for the color of their skin ( they could be pulled over for the color of their skin + a broken taillight, though that's true in any police department in America), and there's nothing regarding enforcement that gives locals any more power than the federal government has to enforce its immigration laws. They just want local Arizona law enforcement officers to be able to pretend they're federal agents when it comes to immigration.

[Crapshoot]

ITs going to overturned by the supreme court. Suggesting that this is about anything more than "pick on those brown people" is wishcasting of the highest order.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

ITs going to overturned by the supreme court.

I wouldn't doubt that, since there's already a lack of adequate will to perform sworn duties in DC, one more example wouldn't be any surprise at all.

Suggesting that this is about anything more than "pick on those brown people" is wishcasting of the highest order.

Utter & complete bullshit ... unless "brown people" is your preferred slang for "illegal immigrants", which is awfully politically incorrect.