New Arizona Law amended.. Looks okay to me now

[Chester Copperpot]

Was reading thru the amended SB1070 and it appears constitutional to me now..

anybody else want to share any input?

Heres the link the the amended bill: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?format=normal&inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm

[tmosley]

It definitely looks better, but it is still open to abuse. Imagine if you are pulled over and the cop has a bad attitude about something and decides to pull you in on suspicion of being an illegal alien.

It makes a lot more sense to just get rid of the welfare programs that draw illegals here, and drop quotas on immigration. This way, those who want to come here to work, can, and those who want welfare will be forced to look elsewhere.

[rancher89]

When in doubt, we are better off with fewer laws, intrusions etc than adding another one to the pile.

If you guys in AZ want to really put the hammer down, get rid of the government freebies....

[jmdrake]

It's definitely a LOT better! It's important that the term "contact" was changed to "stop". I still have two questions though.

1) When does law enforcement have "reasonable suspicion" to believe someone is an illegal alien? Ok, the law now says that it can't be based at all on race, color or national origin. Is it based on a person's accent? Obviously if you see someone crossing a border fence that gives rise to reasonable suspicion. But what else?

2) How much latitude does law enforcement have after making a "lawful stop" over someone who is not driving a car?

Consider the following scenario applied to both questions. A group of people a riding in a car. A police officer pulls the car over for some valid reason. (Let's say it's something benign like a broken tail light.) Of course the officer has the right to see the license since (in most states) he could write a citation for that. And under this law the license could be checked for immigration status. So far so good. But what about everybody else in the car? Does the officer have a right to demand that the other people in the car, who have at this are not under suspicion of any crime except possibly immigration status, provide him with documentation? If yes, then under which circumstances?

Here's another scenario. Say if the police are pulling people over for what many here would consider an illegitimate stop like a sobriety or license checkpoint? I question the constitutionality of such checkpoints where citizens are being accosted without probable cause, but it's common in the U.S. Since drivers are always supposed to have a valid license when operating a motor vehicle on the public roads, as long as such stops are legal, checking licenses are legal. But passengers are not required to have any kind of identification.

To me the best way to write the law would be to simplify it. At any time when the police can already demand your id, such as when enforcing traffic laws or when making an arrest, they can also check immigration status. That's what a lot of the supporters of this law think it does. So why not just say that?

[jmdrake]

It definitely looks better, but it is still open to abuse. Imagine if you are pulled over and the cop has a bad attitude about something and decides to pull you in on suspicion of being an illegal alien.

Well the way this law is written, if a cop pulls you over and you have a valid drivers license that should be the end of it. If he "pulls you in on suspicion of being an illegal alien" then he's violated the law as written. If you're driving without a valid license then he already has the right to pull you in without this new law.

The open question is what about your passengers? Can he demand their IDs and if they won't give him an ID or if they don't have one to give can he pull them in?



It makes a lot more sense to just get rid of the welfare programs that draw illegals here, and drop quotas on immigration. This way, those who want to come here to work, can, and those who want welfare will be forced to look elsewhere.

States don't have the power to get rid of the welfare programs or change immigration quotas. But if you're talking about what should be done at the federal level, the first thing should be to get rid of NAFTA. Remember how NAFTA was supposed to "solve" the immigration problem by improving the Mexican economy? Instead immigration got worse. That's because NAFTA hurts poor Mexican peasant farmers as much as it hurts poor and middle class Americans.

Also even if the labor equation of the border problem went away, we would still have the drug issue. I know...I know...end the war on drugs. But again that's not something the state of Arizona can do.

[puppetmaster]

It definitely looks better, but it is still open to abuse. Imagine if you are pulled over and the cop has a bad attitude about something and decides to pull you in on suspicion of being an illegal alien.

It makes a lot more sense to just get rid of the welfare programs that draw illegals here, and drop quotas on immigration. This way, those who want to come here to work, can, and those who want welfare will be forced to look elsewhere.

Yes get rid of the welfare, but unlimited immigration in my opinion would be a bad idea. I think how many people would flood in to the states looking for a better life from many different countries. then if they find no job, no hope then the do the same as anyone else that is hungry, homeless.....turn to crime, beg starve. then we have to deport them?? I have been to many of these third world countries and a life in jail in the US is better than their current life. Nope, this is a larger more complex problem than that and will require a logical, planned out and multi faceted solution. Immediate deportation of illegals that commit crimes is required IMHO

Borders need to be enforced at this time. No one world country until the one world government takes over.:rolleyes:

Many of my friends are legal immigrants and my wife is not a US citizen. So don't pin the he hates Mexicans or any other nationality tag on me.

[rancher89]

Does AZ have an "open container" law? If they do and a passenger is drinking something that appears to be an alcoholic beverage, cop has reasonable suspicion to pull all the passengers out and check their "papers." Doesn't matter that the driver isn't drinking, there's an open container in the cabin of the vehicle.

Does the cop smell pot or see some "works?"

Suspicious activity, such as fidgeting, hands hidden, sweating......



I don't support or condone any of the above, but they are laws on the book in several states.

[angelatc]

It definitely looks better, but it is still open to abuse. Imagine if you are pulled over and the cop has a bad attitude about something and decides to pull you in on suspicion of being an illegal alien.

I imagine that would be illegal. Actually, I don't have to imagine it. It is illegal.



It makes a lot more sense to just get rid of the welfare programs that draw illegals here, and drop quotas on immigration. This way, those who want to come here to work, can, and those who want welfare will be forced to look elsewhere.

It's a cute talking point, but nothing more.

You can't ever get the votes to cut welfare while so many people are on welfare. So it makes sense to force welfare recipients back out into the workforce by creating jobs, by throwing out the people who are here illegally.

You can't have a country without borders.

[angelatc]

It's definitely a LOT better! It's important that the term "contact" was changed to "stop". I still have two questions though.

1) When does law enforcement have "reasonable suspicion" to believe someone is an illegal alien? Ok, the law now says that it can't be based at all on race, color or national origin. Is it based on a person's accent? Obviously if you see someone crossing a border fence that gives rise to reasonable suspicion. But what else?

There are 40 years of reasonable suspicion decisions and precedents in the legal system. If you want to know each and every nuance, then perhaps you should go to law school.

But they do exist. It isn't some arbitrary term - it has specific legal meanings.

[jmdrake]

There are 40 years of reasonable suspicion decisions and precedents in the legal system. If you want to know each and every nuance, then perhaps you should go to law school.

But they do exist. It isn't some arbitrary term - it has specific legal meanings.

Actually I am in law school. ;) I've done some research on the Arizona law, and the precedence for some of the terms was mighty thin if not non existent. If you like I can send you my search results. Also you have to apply the law to the actual facts. "Reasonable suspicion" for marijuana is not the same as "reasonable suspicion" for illegal immigrant status. Have you done any research on this, or are you just assuming that "there must be some precedent somewhere"?

Anyway, the onus is on those defending this new law to do the research and prove that it doesn't do what some fear it might rather than the other way around. It's not enough to say "it has a specific legal meaning". Maybe that "legal meaning" isn't constitutional as applied in this context? That's the way the Patriot Act should have been approached. Further most police officers (you know, the guys who will actually have to enforce this?) have never been to law school. Tom Tancredo, someone I actually trust on the immigration issue, had serious problems about the original law. I'll be interested to see what he has to say about the new version. We should all be skeptical of any new grant of government power even if it's being done at the local level and for a cause we generally agree with.

Last point. When a law requires you to research case law to understand meanings of terms, that's a possible sign of poor drafting. It's better when laws are simple and terms are defined within the statute. And yea, I know that means that most of what comes out of congress these days is utter crap.

[John Taylor]

When in doubt, we are better off with fewer laws, intrusions etc than adding another one to the pile.

If you guys in AZ want to really put the hammer down, get rid of the government freebies....

The federal government through the supreme court has ruled that we can't prevent illegals or their children from attending public schools. We have to staunch the flow of the people who live off redistribution before we can roll back the welfare state.

[Cowlesy]

I agree with getting rid of the welfare state as striking at the root, but you should see the constant flogging Governor Chris Christie is taking just for attempting to dismantle bits and pieces of it. This morning when I woke up I heard an ad on the radio during Imus, and it basically made Christie out to be a child-hating, woman-hating, minority-hating, hating-hating-hating Satan.

The big money is coming down on him like a ton of bricks. Good luck to any politician that attempts at reducing the gov't spending.

[Pepsi]

The federal government through the supreme court has ruled that we can't prevent illegals or their children from attending public schools. We have to staunch the flow of the people who live off redistribution before we can roll back the welfare state.

Get rid of Public schools and let Home schooling and Private Schools take over.

[John Taylor]

Get rid of Public schools and let Home schooling and Private Schools take over.

Yes, I agree that government run education should be abolished. Bastiat's Letter to the Elector's of Saint Sever is very persuasive arguing for such an abolition. I am just saying that, under the constitutional system we have in place, public schools exist, and the federal government's judges have determined that individual states cannot deny illegals publicly funded educations.

[tmosley]

I imagine that would be illegal. Actually, I don't have to imagine it. It is illegal.



It's a cute talking point, but nothing more.

You can't ever get the votes to cut welfare while so many people are on welfare. So it makes sense to force welfare recipients back out into the workforce by creating jobs, by throwing out the people who are here illegally.

You can't have a country without borders.

Sigh.

There are lots of things you would imagine would be illegal, or that you would imagine the cops wouldn't be allowed to do, like, say, seizing all of your personal property under civil asset forfeiture. Imagination isn't what is needed. We need less government, period. This means that we need to be taking away the special rights and privileges of cops, not adding to them. Hell, I'd replace the whole police force with Pinkertons. Then they'd at least be accountable for their actions.

Throwing out illegal workers isn't going to create more jobs, it is just going to end marginally productive businesses and destroy American jobs. Think about it. You have a strawberry farm, and need your crop picked. In the past you have relied on (illegal) migrant workers, because that way you are not subject to all the rules and regulations that come from employing people in this country. Now, there are no illegals, so you have to hire legal immigrants to do the work (Americans won't do it--they have roots here and are not likely give them up to become migrant workers so they can do backbreaking labor), so now you have to pay 50% more for your labor, including hiring accountants, and compliance costs with regulations that apply to businesses with more than X number of employees. You go out of business, destroying not only your job, but several other year round jobs filled by Americans at your farm.

[jmdrake]

I agree with getting rid of the welfare state as striking at the root, but you should see the constant flogging Governor Chris Christie is taking just for attempting to dismantle bits and pieces of it. This morning when I woke up I heard an ad on the radio during Imus, and it basically made Christie out to be a child-hating, woman-hating, minority-hating, hating-hating-hating Satan.

The big money is coming down on him like a ton of bricks. Good luck to any politician that attempts at reducing the gov't spending.

LOL. A political correct ad on Imus? What is this world coming to?

[puppetmaster]

Sigh.

There are lots of things you would imagine would be illegal, or that you would imagine the cops wouldn't be allowed to do, like, say, seizing all of your personal property under civil asset forfeiture. Imagination isn't what is needed. We need less government, period. This means that we need to be taking away the special rights and privileges of cops, not adding to them. Hell, I'd replace the whole police force with Pinkertons. Then they'd at least be accountable for their actions.

Throwing out illegal workers isn't going to create more jobs, it is just going to end marginally productive businesses and destroy American jobs. Think about it. You have a strawberry farm, and need your crop picked. In the past you have relied on (illegal) migrant workers, because that way you are not subject to all the rules and regulations that come from employing people in this country. Now, there are no illegals, so you have to hire legal immigrants to do the work (Americans won't do it--they have roots here and are not likely give them up to become migrant workers so they can do backbreaking labor), so now you have to pay 50% more for your labor, including hiring accountants, and compliance costs with regulations that apply to businesses with more than X number of employees. You go out of business, destroying not only your job, but several other year round jobs filled by Americans at your farm.

they used to pick corn by hand too.
necessity is the birth place of invention.

[1000-points-of-fright]

It definitely looks better, but it is still open to abuse. Imagine if you are pulled over and the cop has a bad attitude about something and decides to pull you in on suspicion of being an illegal alien.

Imagine if you are pulled over and then shot in the back for no reason (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=244731). All laws are open to abuse. You prosecute the abuser.

[John Taylor]

Imagine if you are pulled over and then shot in the back for no reason (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=244731). All laws are open to abuse. You prosecute the abuser.

Precisely, we must fight to apply the rule of law to all people, including illegals and police.

[Brian4Liberty]

IMHO, they didn't fix it. The part in bold is the same as before. Can a State, via a law, decide whether a warrant is needed? Either a warrant is required by the Constitution, or it isn't. The State can't legislate away the Bill of Rights. (At least without the Supreme Court backing them up on it :( ).

Part 5 is still badly worded. Why not just say:

"5. The person to be arrested has committed any public offense."


13-3883. Arrest by officer without warrant

A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, may arrest a person if he the officer has probable cause to believe:

1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the felony.

2. A misdemeanor has been committed in his the officer's presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.

3. The person to be arrested has been involved in a traffic accident and violated any criminal section of title 28, and that such violation occurred prior to or immediately following such traffic accident.

4. A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense. A person arrested under this paragraph is eligible for release under section 13‑3903.

5. The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

[Daamien]

It's less bad, but it is still bad.

[jmdrake]

Imagine if you are pulled over and then shot in the back for no reason (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=244731). All laws are open to abuse. You prosecute the abuser.

So we allow the government to pass as many abusive laws as possible based on the vain hope of later prosecution? Not every time an abuse happens do you have it on video. And in many cases prosecution is limited due to the doctrine of "qualified immunity". Remember the case where the principle made a girl strip search over an aspirin (http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/SchoolLaw/Issues/Safety/RecentCases/Safford.aspx)? Oh sure, the strip search was deemed unconstitutional, but the school administration was fully protected based on the idea that they "reasonably" believed they were within the law. The Arizona law (at least the initial draft) specifically indemnifies officers against lawsuits.

[RyanRSheets]

It definitely looks better, but it is still open to abuse. Imagine if you are pulled over and the cop has a bad attitude about something and decides to pull you in on suspicion of being an illegal alien.

It makes a lot more sense to just get rid of the welfare programs that draw illegals here, and drop quotas on immigration. This way, those who want to come here to work, can, and those who want welfare will be forced to look elsewhere.

Also have to get rid of the black labor markets by cutting taxes. It's not just welfare, it's that the people looking for the cheapest unskilled labor are willing to cut corners to evade our absurd tax system. If we closed the borders completely, everything would be outsourced.

[Stary Hickory]

It's less bad, but it is still bad.

Oh yeah for sure, I mean lets give ourselves zero ability to enforce the borders and then lets by law be required to give people everything for free (off the backs of American producers) if they come here.....

[MelissaWV]

Was reading thru the amended SB1070 and it appears constitutional to me now..

anybody else want to share any input?

Heres the link the the amended bill: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?format=normal&inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm


Sec. 6. Section 13-3883, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
A peace officer may, without a warrant, may arrest a person if he the officer has probable cause to believe:
...
5. The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

Sections 2 and 3 express the prohibition on using race/national origin/etc., but I do not see it in the provided text for Section 6. Each time it is mentioned in Sections 2 and 3, it mentions applying to the current section/subsection.

The section that was ripest for abuse to begin with is still in the bill. Whether or not it will pan out to actually be a problem remains to be seen.

It's not about "not having any laws" or "not enforcing immigration" so much as why such a simple-to-fix loophole would be left in a law like this, especially after it's been revisited and edited already.

[damiengwa]

Oh yeah for sure, I mean lets give ourselves zero ability to enforce the borders and then lets by law be required to give people everything for free (off the backs of American producers) if they come here.....

Stary, i nominate you to be the dude who's gotta go down there and 'enforce the border.' ANd don't think you are going to make me pay for it. You go ahead an keep worshiping and imaginary line in the dirt... Keep thanking your lucky stars you popped out of the womb upon the right plot of land...

[puppetmaster]

Stary, i nominate you to be the dude who's gotta go down there and 'enforce the border.' ANd don't think you are going to make me pay for it. You go ahead an keep worshiping and imaginary line in the dirt... Keep thanking your lucky stars you popped out of the womb upon the right plot of land...

so you're saying no borders?