PDA

View Full Version : Arizona Gov. Signs Controversial Immigration Bill: Decision Not 'Made Lightly




bobbyw24
04-23-2010, 06:10 PM
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's gateway for human and drug smuggling.

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were "overreacting" and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level – or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.

The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it "launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."

Brewer ordered the state's law enforcement licensing agency to develop a training course on how to implement the law while respecting civil rights.

The bill will take effect in late July or early August.

Story continues below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/jan-brewer-arizona-govern_n_549290.html

foofighter20x
04-23-2010, 06:29 PM
There's been a lot of media pooing over the reasonable suspicion language, saying it invites racial profiling.

They couldn't be more wrong. The language comes from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/case.html) (1968), which says:

"[I]n justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.

To clarify, there has to be a concrete reason which causes the police to believe the person is in the country illegally before they can ask for proof of legal entry.

Additionally, Arizona law forbids the use of race to make this determination.

foofighter20x
04-28-2010, 01:28 AM
Interesting conversation on FB (names removed to protect the stupid)...

A complaint was made about the reasonable suspicion part of the Arizona law:



Me: Reasonable suspicion has a specific legal meaning that is much more stringent than its name evokes.

Person 1: Aka....racial profiling dude. Any way you twist it, its mandated racial profiling. They're not pulling over suspicious illegal Irish immigrants. I'm just waiting for the pieces of flair they'll make the illegals wear, and put all of them in holding areas...lets call them Camps, that sounds fun. So there will be this concentration of illegals, concentration...camp! Cool alliteration! Lets go with it!


Me: No it's not. Race is not a basis for reasonable suspicion. "Reasonable suspicion is an objectively justifiable suspicion based on specific facts or circumstances that would cause a reasonable officer to believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Anything that deviates from that standard is going to get chucked by a competent judge. Race is not a reason to believe there's about to be a crime. Or do you think it is? Because your argument depends on that assumption...

Person 1: You're a fucktard


Me: Wow. That's really constructive... Care to answer the actual question?

I should probably make it clear that I don't like the Arizona statute. However, I also think the reaction to it has been seriously overblown because lay people and the media are not familiar with the legal standards this statute invokes.

It's more likely that the key factor that police will use to establish reasonable suspicion is the person's lack of ability to speak English in combination with a lack of any identification.

Is it right? Nope. Will it be predicated on race? Doubtful. You think cops really like having the people they arrest go free? That they want to do all the paperwork associated with an arrest for fun?

Will it get overturned? Highly likely, but not certainly. This is where picking the right test case becomes an art for the attorneys who challenge it.

Person 2: I don't know [foo], but reasonable suspicion has been a loophole or legalese used by racists to justify inappropriate and degrading treatment of suspects. You mention specific facts and circumstances - however, race is the primary means of "weeding out" who may be engaged in illegal activity.


Me: By your logic then, Thurgood Marshall was a racist, since he was a Supreme Court justice at the time Terry was decided, AND he signed onto the majority opinion in Terry. It's the majority opinion from where I got that quote above about reasonable suspicion...