BREAKING Judge BLOCKS parts of Arizona immigration law

[bobbyw24]

By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA MYERS, Associated Press Writers Jacques Billeaud And Amanda Myers, Associated Press Writers – 6 mins ago

PHOENIX – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and protesters were planning a large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them their immigration status.

The volume of the protests will be likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration

[bobbyw24]

Bump to discuss

[AuH20]

They will never let this law embarass the Feds and Obama. Just as I expected.

[michaelwise]

Arizona Moves to Abandon Police Protection of Federally Chartered Banks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As it may be the job of the Federal government to provide police protection of Federally Chartered banking institutions, Arizona will not provide state resources in the protection of those facilities. Arizona does not have the budget means to provide protections after hours when those facilities are un-occupied.

This is the current rumor in the blogosphere.

[Stary Hickory]

Ignore the judge then. the hell with this I am tired of it. n what grounds did he block ANYTHING?

[tropicangela]

does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?

[AuH20]

does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?

Of course not. It's selective obfuscation. I carry my "papers" with me everyday in my wallet. It's called a driver's license. Next time a cop asks me for my driver's license, I'm going to throw this judge's ruling at him. :D

[Stary Hickory]

Well this is more fuel to the fire, things had died down a bit....I had detected a lull in the outrage level....not anymore.

I predict the law will go into effect in the end. When dealing with cops in a law violation you must produce ID anyways, to not deal with illegal immigrants in these situations is absurd. America is reaching a boiling point.


The amount on injustice is reaching a level I have never seen before. A ruling like this when the SC will not even lift a finger to protect our rights or deal honestly with the highest law of the land. It is a smack in the face and a outright outrage.

[MelissaWV]

Of course not. It's selective obfuscation. I carry my "papers" with me everyday in my wallet. It's called a driver's license. Next time a cop asks me for my driver's license, I'm going to throw this judge's ruling at him. :D

How about next time you go jogging or for a walk? Do you carry your ID on you for that? Not everyone does, and I'm a bit suspicious of people who'd like to make it arrestworthy to merely be out and about and not have one's ID on them.


In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

This should have been the only provision to hold up the works. The immigration checks during stops for other reasons is being blocked, but I don't understand why. They've already going to ask for your license, for instance, if they're pulling you over. It shouldn't be that big of a leap to expect someone driving to have some form of paperwork on them. Perhaps the worry was that most people would be let go with a "driving without a license" ticket, and those who looked "suspicious" of being illegals would be profiled and asked to prove their innocence? I can only speculate.

I'm also not a fan of the ruling's wording.


"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

There is also a part of the article that seems to say that it would be just awful if the country had a "patchwork" of differing immigration laws. That sort of thing is entirely suspect. First of all, Nebraska's immigration policies will have far less impact on the country than Texas' or California's, obviously. Second, so what? The answer is that the Government wants it all neat and tidy and wants to keep control for a rainy day.

[angelatc]

does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?

Legal residents, yes. Citizens, no.

I'd really like to see Brewer ignore the court.

[MelissaWV]

Legal residents, yes. Citizens, no.

Which is part of the problem here. Somehow, people are assuming only immigrants who would have papers on them will be asked for papers. In reality, a lot of 100% citizens, who have no real reason to carry "papers" at all times, fall under the category of "looking like an illegal." All assurances of profiling being prohibited aside, that seems like a really ugly path to go down, and a great excuse for police to arrest someone without a warrant (which also means they can search your person and immediate vicinity).

[Liberty4life]

The administration is purposely trying to irritate Americans.

It wants a violent response from people, when that happens there
is your excuse for martial law.

I would even say that the law in Arizona was passed just for this reason.

IT ALL STINKS!
GET OUT!

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano on Arizona's Immigration Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD05RAo8Zw4)
YouTube - Judge Napolitano - 'Arizona Statute Is UnConstitutional' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SuxjzoLyf0)
YouTube - Arizona Immigration Law Backlash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElcL282ehqs)
YouTube - Judge Napolitano on SB 1070 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKQUXhC2VXQ)
YouTube - Judge Napolitano - Arizona law isn't a state right (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqV9w4y7B58)
YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano Warns of "Slippery Slope" with Arizona's New Law on Alex Jones Tv 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSK22S4OtWg)
YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano Warns of "Slippery Slope" with Arizona's New Law on Alex Jones Tv 2/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaCJ7jyztCg)
YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano on Arizona's Immigration Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD05RAo8Zw4)

[Stary Hickory]

Which is part of the problem here. Somehow, people are assuming only immigrants who would have papers on them will be asked for papers. In reality, a lot of 100% citizens, who have no real reason to carry "papers" at all times, fall under the category of "looking like an illegal." All assurances of profiling being prohibited aside, that seems like a really ugly path to go down, and a great excuse for police to arrest someone without a warrant (which also means they can search your person and immediate vicinity).

This is ridiculous and I am sick of hearing it as an argument. A great injustice has occurred and we have people arguing for it. I cannot begin to express how completely ridiculous this sounds.

In order to deal with illegal immigration you must have a means to determine legal status. Every time you post you give absolutely no solutions to how this might be accomplished. In fact with your ideas it is impossible to control immigration, secure the borders or even have a fighting chance of protecting ourselves from being devoured by a engorged welfare state.

If the people of AZ want this law then it is THEY that are subject to it. I cease to see how it remains any of your business. It could be considered a inconvenience, but the people there are willing to accept it in order to deal with an illegal immigration problem.

It is a state...you can move you can not stay...why is it I never here you so outraged over Mass Health Care plan? Where is the anger? Where is the outrage...people there are FORCED...to be a part of that plan to be regulated like cattle.

And we get crickets from you. I don't care about Mass because I don't live there and if they want that sort of law then SO BE IT. At the very least people can choose not to live there.

The game is obvious, to most. Demogauges see an illegals as a possible voting block, another way to manipulate a democracy(with totalitarian power) to oppress more people. Our government is actively wooing outside nationals to influence activities inside our country....and to prey on the rights of each and everyone of us.

[bobbyw24]

The judge is full of hyperbole in one regard

Arizona like East Germany? The judge needs a history lesson

[angelatc]

Which is part of the problem here. Somehow, people are assuming only immigrants who would have papers on them will be asked for papers. In reality, a lot of 100% citizens, who have no real reason to carry "papers" at all times, fall under the category of "looking like an illegal." All assurances of profiling being prohibited aside, that seems like a really ugly path to go down, and a great excuse for police to arrest someone without a warrant (which also means they can search your person and immediate vicinity).

The law already exists - droves of people haven't been summarily rounded up because they were mistaken for illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants keep their papers on them religiously because they don't want to be deported. It's apparently not that hard for LE to figure out the differences.

I'm not a big fan of prohibiting anything because something bad might happen. If the law progresses down that ugly path, then let the people sue.

That's how the system is supposed to work.

As it stands, a huge majority of the people who live in the state think the law is a good law. I'm perfectly willing to defer to them.

[AuH20]

The judge is full of hyperbole in one regard

Arizona like East Germany? The judge needs a history lesson

It's crazy to see the judge defending the feds. The very same Feds who have intentionally corrupted everything they have touched over the last 100 years.

[Krugerrand]

Which is part of the problem here. Somehow, people are assuming only immigrants who would have papers on them will be asked for papers. In reality, a lot of 100% citizens, who have no real reason to carry "papers" at all times, fall under the category of "looking like an illegal." All assurances of profiling being prohibited aside, that seems like a really ugly path to go down, and a great excuse for police to arrest someone without a warrant (which also means they can search your person and immediate vicinity).

And, i believe, in some places that's enough for them to add your DNA to the 'bad people' database.

[Krugerrand]

It's crazy to see the judge defending the feds. The very same Feds who have intentionally corrupted everything they have touched over the last 100 years.

I don't think he's saying that it's a defense of the Feds as it is a joint attack against a bad law.

[Stary Hickory]

The judge is full of hyperbole in one regard

Arizona like East Germany? The judge needs a history lesson

And he is totally at odds with Ron Paul. I cannot abide by anyone saying we have no right to protect our borders. It's akin to saying we have right to protect our country. I am truly disgusted by what has occurred.

A ID check is ROUTINE with police interaction. To merely take the next step to determine legal status makes complete sense....it is something I ASSUMED was already happening.

When I heard about the law, after reading it and getting the truth about it, I was like well this explains why illegal immigration is such a problem. No means to enforce the law. And the mere passage of the law was enough to encourage illegals to leave... beautiful.

In any case this is not the last of this. We have seen on the tip of the iceberg.

[angelatc]

It's crazy to see the judge defending the feds. The very same Feds who have intentionally corrupted everything they have touched over the last 100 years.

The fact that we can disagree with some of our leaders on certain issues is what distinguishes us from a cult.

I love the judge, but I think he's wrong about this.

[AuH20]

The fact that we can disagree with some of our leaders on certain issues is what distinguishes us from a cult.

I love the judge, but I think he's wrong about this.

Because he solely views it through the prism of the individual who is likely to be asked for a driver's license. If there was a few thousand migrant workers working and moving between the border in a relatively quiet fashion, this entire issue would be backpage news. Instead we have millions of Mexicans and OTMs moving northward thanks to the economic dislocation occuring in their dysfunctional home countries.

[tropicangela]

Any suggestions on how this law could be tweaked to avoid this kind of disagreement while enforcing it? I don't understand the whole idea completely, but I have been concerned about people having to carry papers because of this law.

I heard that illegal criminals are often let go because of restrictions on holding times.

[Stary Hickory]

The fact that we can disagree with some of our leaders on certain issues is what distinguishes us from a cult.

I love the judge, but I think he's wrong about this.

He is dead wrong. Because you must consider what is happening and what is being done. The people are FORCED to pay the burden of having just anyone come in and use the system...and system people don't want to be a part of.

Add to this statists have undermined our constitution to such a point where it offers no protection the Supreme Court does no justice to the law of the land. That means we are in the grips of a totalitarian demogauge democracy. The only thing missing from the mix of tyranny and corruption is buying illegals votes by promising even more of the peoples labor and lives in the form of taxation and forced programs.

Add to this in order to protect borders you must have enforcement on immigration. Without it you have defacto NO BORDERS, and it's a free for all on the pockets of honest men and women who are threatened with physical violence constantly if they do not surrender part of their labor to a government...one that uses it to buy more votes...and get more power.

This is the problem. Restore the Constitution..PROTECT the rights of the people before opening up the borders. The whole idea of borders and the ideas of a country is to protect the people and their property. We have a government that is preying on the people. Illegal immigration, withing the framework of a corrupt democracy, is another tool to oppress the people.

[MelissaWV]

This is ridiculous and I am sick of hearing it as an argument. A great injustice has occurred and we have people arguing for it. I cannot begin to express how completely ridiculous this sounds.

In order to deal with illegal immigration you must have a means to determine legal status. Every time you post you give absolutely no solutions to how this might be accomplished. In fact with your ideas it is impossible to control immigration, secure the borders or even have a fighting chance of protecting ourselves from being devoured by a engorged welfare state.

If the people of AZ want this law then it is THEY that are subject to it. I cease to see how it remains any of your business. It could be considered a inconvenience, but the people there are willing to accept it in order to deal with an illegal immigration problem.

It is a state...you can move you can not stay...why is it I never here you so outraged over Mass Health Care plan? Where is the anger? Where is the outrage...people there are FORCED...to be a part of that plan to be regulated like cattle.

And we get crickets from you. I don't care about Mass because I don't live there and if they want that sort of law then SO BE IT. At the very least people can choose not to live there.

The game is obvious, to most. Demogauges see an illegals as a possible voting block, another way to manipulate a democracy(with totalitarian power) to oppress more people. Our government is actively wooing outside nationals to influence activities inside our country....and to prey on the rights of each and everyone of us.

Then you are not the least bit familiar with anything I've ever said on the subject. Congratulations for making yourself look absolutely foolish.

I did speak about the Massachusetts healthcare problem, by the way. I can see how you wouldn't remember; you weren't on the boards at the time. I talked about it in particular with those who were saying Romney wasn't a bad guy. There's a problem with utterly ignoring these ideas as they spring up at the state level, which is that they have a way of making themselves known at the national level soon enough. At that point, it will be everyone's problem... though of course we're all free to move.

You don't have to determine the legal status of every single person you see. To think this is to be absolutely ridiculous to the point that logical discussion is not possible. You can determine the legal status of those you actually pull over for a traffic stop, seeing as you're already asking for identification as part of that person's contract with the Government to use its roads. Since we have licenses, that's only fair and obvious. Someone without a license is already breaking the law, and needs to go out of their way to prove they have one but it's not on them, or face escalating consequences. No one in their right mind has much of a problem with this, other than the potential for profiling, but even that is after a violation has happened.

I have posted the law over and over, and no longer have any desire to do so. You've read it, and told me it says something utterly different than the words actually state. There are probably a half dozen people or so on the boards who continue to insist that the law does not provide a means to arrest, without warrant, those suspected of being illegal. It does. It does not say "those suspected of being illegal while conducting a motor vehicle" or any other such thing. All that's necessary is behavior that makes an officer suspicious. That behavior has not been defined, which leaves it open to abuse and interpretation.

I have also posted solutions to the actual problems people talk about. Welfare should, as it's still going to exist, be restricted to citizens. All citizens have paperwork that makes them such. This is either in the form of a birth certificate (easy to verify) or legal immigration paperwork (also very easy to verify). Verify citizenship before providing someone with foodstamps, or public schooling, or healthcare, or whatever else a citizen is illegible for, and a great deal of the incentive and sustenance goes away. Hiring illegals should be looked down upon, and companies should be able to be certified in some way that lets people know they hire "Citizens Only" in the same way that people used to look for the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to know a product was worthwhile. Criminals should be dealt with, which goes without saying.

All of that can be done without stopping someone who "looks like an illegal" and placing them under arrest for not having their ID on them, which no matter how you want to squirm is allowable under the current incarnation of the law.

The Constitutionality of Massachusetts' healthcare program should have been challenged before we got stuck with ObamaCare, which is already causing problems and it's not even fully in place. The Constitutionality of asking people for their papers based purely on, for example, the fact they're hanging out near a Home Depot or speaking Spanish, should also be challenged. I'd actually have much preferred that the law had gone into effect, and that the challenges were based on actual cases rather than hypotheticals. Right now, this review basically is the legal equivalent of arresting someone for a thought crime. It would have been more useful to all involved if someone actually HAD been arrested under that clause, which would have exposed more directly the problem the law poses. Instead, this is just worrying a wound that was already tended to for the moment.

[dannno]

If the people of AZ want this law then it is THEY that are subject to it.


Well if you're white then you're probably not really subject to the law... or it wouldn't be an issue, because white people don't look like illegals.

[AuH20]

Well if you're white then you're probably not really subject to the law... or it wouldn't be an issue, because white people don't look like illegals.

Illegallity is irrespective of color. Not the other way around.

[constituent]

In order to deal with illegal immigration you must have a means to determine legal status.

Your entire post is bunk until you prove that any of them are here "illegally."

[MelissaWV]

The law already exists - droves of people haven't been summarily rounded up because they were mistaken for illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants keep their papers on them religiously because they don't want to be deported. It's apparently not that hard for LE to figure out the differences.
....

Please show me which law "already exists" which allows for warrantless arrests of people based on suspicion of removable acts. I haven't had much luck finding it. When told that the law has "been on the books for decades" by other posters, I also become confused considering this one mentions eVerify, which obviously has not been around for decades.

This is not precisely the same law that's been around. It has many perfectly reasonable clauses which are versions of what's been around. It also has one glaringly stupid clause that no one sees fit to correct. When those involved are busying themselves fixing every OTHER clause, and ignoring that one, it makes me wonder about it.

[constituent]

Illegallity is irrespective of color. Not the other way around.

Is violation of an unconstitutional federal statute a criminal act?

[Stary Hickory]

Then you are not the least bit familiar with anything I've ever said on the subject. Congratulations for making yourself look absolutely foolish.

I did speak about the Massachusetts healthcare problem, by the way. I can see how you wouldn't remember; you weren't on the boards at the time. I talked about it in particular with those who were saying Romney wasn't a bad guy. There's a problem with utterly ignoring these ideas as they spring up at the state level, which is that they have a way of making themselves known at the national level soon enough. At that point, it will be everyone's problem... though of course we're all free to move.

You don't have to determine the legal status of every single person you see. To think this is to be absolutely ridiculous to the point that logical discussion is not possible. You can determine the legal status of those you actually pull over for a traffic stop, seeing as you're already asking for identification as part of that person's contract with the Government to use its roads. Since we have licenses, that's only fair and obvious. Someone without a license is already breaking the law, and needs to go out of their way to prove they have one but it's not on them, or face escalating consequences. No one in their right mind has much of a problem with this, other than the potential for profiling, but even that is after a violation has happened.

I have posted the law over and over, and no longer have any desire to do so. You've read it, and told me it says something utterly different than the words actually state. There are probably a half dozen people or so on the boards who continue to insist that the law does not provide a means to arrest, without warrant, those suspected of being illegal. It does. It does not say "those suspected of being illegal while conducting a motor vehicle" or any other such thing. All that's necessary is behavior that makes an officer suspicious. That behavior has not been defined, which leaves it open to abuse and interpretation.

I have also posted solutions to the actual problems people talk about. Welfare should, as it's still going to exist, be restricted to citizens. All citizens have paperwork that makes them such. This is either in the form of a birth certificate (easy to verify) or legal immigration paperwork (also very easy to verify). Verify citizenship before providing someone with foodstamps, or public schooling, or healthcare, or whatever else a citizen is illegible for, and a great deal of the incentive and sustenance goes away. Hiring illegals should be looked down upon, and companies should be able to be certified in some way that lets people know they hire "Citizens Only" in the same way that people used to look for the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to know a product was worthwhile. Criminals should be dealt with, which goes without saying.

All of that can be done without stopping someone who "looks like an illegal" and placing them under arrest for not having their ID on them, which no matter how you want to squirm is allowable under the current incarnation of the law.

The Constitutionality of Massachusetts' healthcare program should have been challenged before we got stuck with ObamaCare, which is already causing problems and it's not even fully in place. The Constitutionality of asking people for their papers based purely on, for example, the fact they're hanging out near a Home Depot or speaking Spanish, should also be challenged. I'd actually have much preferred that the law had gone into effect, and that the challenges were based on actual cases rather than hypotheticals. Right now, this review basically is the legal equivalent of arresting someone for a thought crime. It would have been more useful to all involved if someone actually HAD been arrested under that clause, which would have exposed more directly the problem the law poses. Instead, this is just worrying a wound that was already tended to for the moment.

Well then where is yur objection to the AZ law...you hav posted against it undermined here on these boards often. The law does NOT allow cops to randomly check people. This has been reiterated repeatedly, it was even adjusted by AZ AGAIN specifically to deal with this objection. The law allows cops to check legal status during routine stops. It does not allow them to check you randomly.

Over and over this has been pointed out. It about time you listened. I am sorry but when my liberties(what few remain) are at stake I just don't sit by. We have a group in Washington that are appealing to the citizens of another country in an effort to overrun a democratic system that has no law no limits on what it can do to people.

And for the record I think Mass has the right to engage in that ridiculous Health Care plan, as long as they BEAR responsibility for it.

[tropicangela]

The law does NOT allow cops to randomly check people. This has been reiterated repeatedly, it was even adjusted by AZ AGAIN specifically to deal with this objection. The law allows cops to check legal status during routine stops. It does not allow them to check you randomly.


So only criminals have to carry ID?

[AuH20]

Is violation of an unconstitutional federal statute a criminal act?

Well, it depends how you view the period of 1776 to 1875 in which several Supreme Court decisions deemed the control of immigration as "a constitutional function of the state."

[Stary Hickory]

So only criminals have to carry ID?

If you are being pulled over for a violation yea...I don't think you are a criminal for speeding or blowing a red light...call me crazy but I think the entire US would be 95% criminals in that case.

The law does not allow for random stops. It specifically says so(this should be enough for you). And if that is not good enough then lawsuits would settle the matter. That is what the courts are for. Not to make it impossible to identify people so that no matter what immigration cannot be enforced.

[angelatc]

So only criminals have to carry ID?

No, legal resident aliens have to carry ID. That's federal law as well as AZ law.

[MelissaWV]

Well then where is yur objection to the AZ law...you hav posted against it undermined here on these boards often. The law does NOT allow cops to randomly check people. This has been reiterated repeatedly, it was even adjusted by AZ AGAIN specifically to deal with this objection. The law allows cops to check legal status during routine stops. It does not allow them to check you randomly.

Over and over this has been pointed out. It about time you listened. I am sorry but when my liberties(what few remain) are at stake I just don't sit by. We have a group in Washington that are appealing to the citizens of another country in an effort to overrun a democratic system that has no law no limits on what it can do to people.

And for the record I think Mass has the right to engage in that ridiculous Health Care plan, as long as they BEAR responsibility for it.

It is time you read the law itself. It's been posted for you, of course, but you fail to comprehend what it says for some reason that's beyond my ability to discern. It does, in fact, allow for an officer to ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT a person they SUSPECT of a REMOVABLE ACT. It does not say anything, in that section, about lawful contact or initially being stopped or ANYTHING ELSE. This is, in fact, pretty damned random because being here illegally is a removable act, which means an officer can STOP and ARREST you, WITHOUT WARRANT, upon SUSPICION of being an illegal. Since there is a built-in "no discrimination" clause, they can stop a "white" person and say he looked like he was an illegal Russian, or a "black" person and say they certainly looked like an illegal African immigrant, and besides a search of their person in conjunction with the arrest yielded some drugs so obviously it was justified. Comprende?

All it would take to fix the law, which someone else asked about, would be to either spell out which removable offenses are a part of this warrantless arrest (and exclude the one simply stating that being here illegally is a removable offense) or add an exclusionary statement removing the act of being here illegally as an act sufficient enough for that action. It's one sentence. One. The other removable offenses have to do, largely, with marriage fraud and similar things. Those can stay. Stopping someone and asking for ID and, by extension, determining their immigration status is fine. Checking databases, after a stop/arrest, for someone's criminal past and immigration status only makes sense. MOST OF THE LAW MAKES SENSE. This one portion, that people want to gloss over, does not make sense as it is written. The e-verify portion, which people have all but forgotten, is dangerous and stupid.

I talked about this law before it was passed, and shortly after it was passed since some people seem incapable of reading an entire document, and stop at the soundbytes that the media spits up for them. However, as I said, it would have been better at this point to just let it go and wait for a real, solid case to come up as a challenge upon appeal. That stinks, but it's the way things should work. This just prolongs the process, and people will dance around and change a few words but the spirit of the section I object to, I suspect, will remain... which means that if you're jogging past the Home Depot when a bunch of day laborers are rounded up, and you happen to look like them (sweaty and in a tee shirt, no less! Obviously an illegal laborer!) you are *per the letter of the law* going to be eligible for arrest without warrant.

This "we have to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys" argument, which an alarming portion of the liberty movement has embraced, is the perfect way to get people to adopt e-verify, Real ID, and all manner of other "standard" documentation in order to ensure we're all citizens when, and here's the kicker, we already have documentation that shows whether or not we're citizens, and that documentation can be verified at all of the points where people are bothered by illegals leeching off of the system.

It sort of makes you wonder why someone doesn't fix that one itty bitty teeny clause of the entire thing.

[constituent]

Well, it depends how you view the period of 1776 to 1875 in which several Supreme Court decisions deemed the control of immigration as "a constitutional function of the state."

A constitutional function of the state. Yep. :D

But really, it depends on how you view the concept of original intent versus the living document and "judicial activism."

Just for the info., would you mind posting the case(s) you're citing here?

[tropicangela]

It is time you read the law itself. It's been posted for you, of course, but you fail to comprehend what it says for some reason that's beyond my ability to discern. It does, in fact, allow for an officer to ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT a person they SUSPECT of a REMOVABLE ACT. It does not say anything, in that section, about lawful contact or initially being stopped or ANYTHING ELSE. This is, in fact, pretty damned random because being here illegally is a removable act, which means an officer can STOP and ARREST you, WITHOUT WARRANT, upon SUSPICION of being an illegal. Since there is a built-in "no discrimination" clause, they can stop a "white" person and say he looked like he was an illegal Russian, or a "black" person and say they certainly looked like an illegal African immigrant, and besides a search of their person in conjunction with the arrest yielded some drugs so obviously it was justified. Comprende?

All it would take to fix the law, which someone else asked about, would be to either spell out which removable offenses are a part of this warrantless arrest (and exclude the one simply stating that being here illegally is a removable offense) or add an exclusionary statement removing the act of being here illegally as an act sufficient enough for that action. It's one sentence. One. The other removable offenses have to do, largely, with marriage fraud and similar things. Those can stay. Stopping someone and asking for ID and, by extension, determining their immigration status is fine. Checking databases, after a stop/arrest, for someone's criminal past and immigration status only makes sense. MOST OF THE LAW MAKES SENSE. This one portion, that people want to gloss over, does not make sense as it is written. The e-verify portion, which people have all but forgotten, is dangerous and stupid.

I talked about this law before it was passed, and shortly after it was passed since some people seem incapable of reading an entire document, and stop at the soundbytes that the media spits up for them. However, as I said, it would have been better at this point to just let it go and wait for a real, solid case to come up as a challenge upon appeal. That stinks, but it's the way things should work. This just prolongs the process, and people will dance around and change a few words but the spirit of the section I object to, I suspect, will remain... which means that if you're jogging past the Home Depot when a bunch of day laborers are rounded up, and you happen to look like them (sweaty and in a tee shirt, no less! Obviously an illegal laborer!) you are *per the letter of the law* going to be eligible for arrest without warrant.

This "we have to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys" argument, which an alarming portion of the liberty movement has embraced, is the perfect way to get people to adopt e-verify, Real ID, and all manner of other "standard" documentation in order to ensure we're all citizens when, and here's the kicker, we already have documentation that shows whether or not we're citizens, and that documentation can be verified at all of the points where people are bothered by illegals leeching off of the system.

It sort of makes you wonder why someone doesn't fix that one itty bitty teeny clause of the entire thing.

Thank you.

[healthpellets]

http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/983700DFEE44B56B0725776E005D6CCB/$file/10-1413-87.pdf?openelement

if you want to read the ruling yourself.

[constituent]

embed fail.

[Stary Hickory]

It is time you read the law itself. It's been posted for you, of course, but you fail to comprehend what it says for some reason that's beyond my ability to discern. It does, in fact, allow for an officer to ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT a person they SUSPECT of a REMOVABLE ACT. It does not say anything, in that section, about lawful contact or initially being stopped or ANYTHING ELSE. This is, in fact, pretty damned random because being here illegally is a removable act, which means an officer can STOP and ARREST you, WITHOUT WARRANT, upon SUSPICION of being an illegal. Since there is a built-in "no discrimination" clause, they can stop a "white" person and say he looked like he was an illegal Russian, or a "black" person and say they certainly looked like an illegal African immigrant, and besides a search of their person in conjunction with the arrest yielded some drugs so obviously it was justified. Comprende?

All it would take to fix the law, which someone else asked about, would be to either spell out which removable offenses are a part of this warrantless arrest (and exclude the one simply stating that being here illegally is a removable offense) or add an exclusionary statement removing the act of being here illegally as an act sufficient enough for that action. It's one sentence. One. The other removable offenses have to do, largely, with marriage fraud and similar things. Those can stay. Stopping someone and asking for ID and, by extension, determining their immigration status is fine. Checking databases, after a stop/arrest, for someone's criminal past and immigration status only makes sense. MOST OF THE LAW MAKES SENSE. This one portion, that people want to gloss over, does not make sense as it is written. The e-verify portion, which people have all but forgotten, is dangerous and stupid.

I talked about this law before it was passed, and shortly after it was passed since some people seem incapable of reading an entire document, and stop at the soundbytes that the media spits up for them. However, as I said, it would have been better at this point to just let it go and wait for a real, solid case to come up as a challenge upon appeal. That stinks, but it's the way things should work. This just prolongs the process, and people will dance around and change a few words but the spirit of the section I object to, I suspect, will remain... which means that if you're jogging past the Home Depot when a bunch of day laborers are rounded up, and you happen to look like them (sweaty and in a tee shirt, no less! Obviously an illegal laborer!) you are *per the letter of the law* going to be eligible for arrest without warrant.

This "we have to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys" argument, which an alarming portion of the liberty movement has embraced, is the perfect way to get people to adopt e-verify, Real ID, and all manner of other "standard" documentation in order to ensure we're all citizens when, and here's the kicker, we already have documentation that shows whether or not we're citizens, and that documentation can be verified at all of the points where people are bothered by illegals leeching off of the system.

It sort of makes you wonder why someone doesn't fix that one itty bitty teeny clause of the entire thing.

Nope this has been explained to you in another thread. You are misrepresenting the law. The language used is already well understood, it is in connection with a stop. It is the same legal language used for just established purposes.....

But when it was explained to you...you ignored this. But let us journey down crazy land for a bit. I tired of this. Well lets see we have a bill you claim is targeting people, allowing the police to grab people off the street AMRITE?

So this is your position that politicians would actually draft and PASS such a bill that allows people to be whisked away off the streets. Ok this is your crazy position, that politicians even IF they believe in such things would be stupid enough to craft such a bill. In such an environment, under open scrutiny.

But wait there is more let us now add another layer to this ridiculous layer cake of absurdity. You also believe that the AZ state government got called out on their fascist plans to kidnap the citizenry, so what do they do next? They meet again and change the law just to fool people so that they can carry out their nefarious plans to kidnap innocent people off the streets. Yes that is right they did not try to make the bill clearer to make it 100% clear that there was no intention to randomly stop people....It was a giant cover up so that they could unleash their secret desires to scoop up random people and live out their secret racist fantasies.

This is insane. The explanations they offer were legit, their reasoning was legit, they altered to satisfy people just like you. The bill does not allow what you says it does. And by god if it ever did start happening EVERYONE knows it would be shot down in a heartbeat. I really don't get your angle? There is no reason in the world AZ would adopt and pass the bill as you represent it.

What you argue is illogical and makes absolutely no sense even people wanting to just lock up whomever whenever they wanted too would never take such an approach to do so. It might be possible.....JUST might be possible that you are mistaken.

[angelatc]

Again, the law clearly insists that reasonable suspicion of an arrestable crime has to exist before contact is even initiated. That phrase is not some ambiguous catch-all. It has specific legal connotations, which is something that the "they're gonna profile mucho hombres!!!" crowd refuses to admit. Driving while Hispanic is not reasonable suspicion. Driving while carrying 40 Mexicans in the back of an unregistered pick up truck in the middle of the night is.

In short, the "they can arrest anybody!" is unbased fear-mongering.

[bobbyw24]

http://dailycaller.com/

[MelissaWV]

...

if you want to read the ruling yourself.

In part:


Among other things, S.B. 1070 requires officers under certain circumstances (Section 2) and authorizes officers to make a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States (Section 6).

Note that there are two different sections that do two different things, and please note what Section 6 is summarized as saying. Please go back and read the document itself as amended, and realize that it's accurate.

[tropicangela]

Again, the law clearly insists that reasonable suspicion of an arrestable crime has to exist before contact is even initiated. That phrase is not some ambiguous catch-all. It has specific legal connotations, which is something that the "they're gonna profile mucho hombres!!!" crowd refuses to admit. Driving while Hispanic is not reasonable suspicion. Driving while carrying 40 Mexicans in the back of an unregistered pick up truck in the middle of the night is.

In short, the "they can arrest anybody!" is unbased fear-mongering.

Sorry for my ignorance, and I haven't read and understood the entire bill... but it has to be an arrestable offense? Not a ticketable offense?

[Deborah K]

It's time for AZ to secede. They can legally secure their own border with Mexico by using their own police forces and the national guard (according to Judge Nap).

[MelissaWV]

Again, the law clearly insists that reasonable suspicion of an arrestable crime removable offense has to exist before contact is even initiated. That phrase is not some ambiguous catch-all. It has specific legal connotations, which is something that the "they're gonna profile mucho hombres!!!" crowd refuses to admit. Driving while Hispanic is not reasonable suspicion. Driving while carrying 40 Mexicans in the back of an unregistered pick up truck in the middle of the night is.

In short, the "they can arrest anybody!" is unbased fear-mongering.

Fixed.

Driving requires licensure. Walking doesn't. Standing around with 40 "Mexicans" (you pre-checked their nationality?) doesn't make you an illegal, but it gives police the ability to arrest you without warrant, seeing as you are now suspected of being an illegal.

Good job with the making fun of Spanish, too; that's a nice touch.


...the effect of Section 6 on warrantless arrest authority is not entirely clear. Indeed, the Arizona offier training materials state that the revision to A.R.S. 13-3883 "does not appear to change Arizona law." ... Both the United States, in its Motion, and Arizona, at the Hearing, suggested that the revision provides for the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person committed a crime in another state that would be considered a crime if it had been committed in Arizona and that would subject the person to removal from the United States. ... What is clear is that the statutory revision targets only aliens---legal and illegal---because only aliens are removable.

[michaelwise]

All MSM news agencies are in the business of enforcing THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION.

It would be a major blow to their agenda if their illegal immigration agenda was stopped.

Un-restricted diversity is the destroyer of culture and the facilitator of control. I believe it is outlined in THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

http://theuniversalseduction.com/art...rmed-authentic

"The Protocols identify the moving force of the New World Order with a powerful group of extremely chauvinist, manipulative and domination-obsessed Jewish leaders. The leaders, according to the Protocols, despise ordinary community members; they utilise and support anti-Semitism as the means to keep their "lesser brethren", innocent ordinary folk of Jewish origin, in thrall to their rule. The leaders are described as pathological goy haters, bent on destroying culture and traditions of other nations while preserving their own. Their goal is to create world government and rule the homogenised and globalised world."

"- In a mono-ethnic society, the Jews as the only foreign body do stick out and attract attention, while in multicultural society they are hardly seen. For this purpose, the Jews support immigration from non-European countries, as their presence would remove the stamp of Jewish exclusiveness. "

1389) The endgame of multiculturalism for Marxian Jews is racial mongrelization of whites, to destroy white Western civilization and build worldwide socialism/communism.

http://www.rense.com/general32/elders.htm

[Krugerrand]

Personally, I'm not a fan of the law - but I sure enjoy watching AZ try and stick it to Uncle Sam.

[constituent]

It's time for AZ to secede.

They don't even have to do that. They merely have to assert their right to regulate foreign migration across their border. Simple. As. That.



They can legally secure their own border with Mexico by using their own police forces and the national guard (according to Judge Nap).

Cool, so you do agree that the power to regulate foreign migration belongs to the states. That's progress! :)

[constituent]

All MSM news agencies are in the business of enforcing THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION.

It would be a major blow to their agenda if their illegal immigration agenda was stopped.

Un-restricted diversity is the destroyer of culture and the facilitator of control. I believe it is outlined in THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION


Uhhh...

[MelissaWV]

Nope this has been explained to you in another thread. You are misrepresenting the law. The language used is already well understood, it is in connection with a stop. It is the same legal language used for just established purposes.....

But when it was explained to you...you ignored this. But let us journey down crazy land for a bit. I tired of this. Well lets see we have a bill you claim is targeting people, allowing the police to grab people off the street AMRITE?

So this is your position that politicians would actually draft and PASS such a bill that allows people to be whisked away off the streets. Ok this is your crazy position, that politicians even IF they believe in such things would be stupid enough to craft such a bill. In such an environment, under open scrutiny.

But wait there is more let us now add another layer to this ridiculous layer cake of absurdity. You also believe that the AZ state government got called out on their fascist plans to kidnap the citizenry, so what do they do next? They meet again and change the law just to fool people so that they can carry out their nefarious plans to kidnap innocent people off the streets. Yes that is right they did not try to make the bill clearer to make it 100% clear that there was no intention to randomly stop people....It was a giant cover up so that they could unleash their secret desires to scoop up random people and live out their secret racist fantasies.

This is insane. The explanations they offer were legit, their reasoning was legit, they altered to satisfy people just like you. The bill does not allow what you says it does. And by god if it ever did start happening EVERYONE knows it would be shot down in a heartbeat. I really don't get your angle? There is no reason in the world AZ would adopt and pass the bill as you represent it.

What you argue is illogical and makes absolutely no sense even people wanting to just lock up whomever whenever they wanted too would never take such an approach to do so. It might be possible.....JUST might be possible that you are mistaken.

Your entire argument is "nahhhh the Government would NEVER do that." Well, that's what the law actually says. They already passed it, it was about to go into effect, and no one will ever know if anyone would have gotten caught up in that ridiculous language because it's being pre-empted and dismantled before anyone's arrested. Please read the portions I've posted from the ruling on the matter, and review the law itself. Don't review the lawful contact portion. Review Section 6, which is an entirely different thing altogether.

As for randomly stopping people, you already can. You can even do all sorts of song and dance to get people to say it's okay to search them, or their vehicle, and you can prey on their ignorance of their rights to do it. When you stop someone, you can of course search them for your safety, and anything found during that initial search is going to only bolster your case against that dangerous person. This provides a justification for a stop that's already happened. This provides a big glaring loophole through which all sorts of things can be shoved. This will spread, and people will be looking at Section 2 and ignoring Section 6 and the e-verify portions of it. And it'll all be in the name of "security."

[Deborah K]

All MSM news agencies are in the business of enforcing THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION.

It would be a major blow to their agenda if their illegal immigration agenda was stopped.

Un-restricted diversity is the destroyer of culture and the facilitator of control. I believe it is outlined in THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

http://theuniversalseduction.com/art...rmed-authentic

"The Protocols identify the moving force of the New World Order with a powerful group of extremely chauvinist, manipulative and domination-obsessed Jewish leaders. The leaders, according to the Protocols, despise ordinary community members; they utilise and support anti-Semitism as the means to keep their "lesser brethren", innocent ordinary folk of Jewish origin, in thrall to their rule. The leaders are described as pathological goy haters, bent on destroying culture and traditions of other nations while preserving their own. Their goal is to create world government and rule the homogenised and globalised world."

"- In a mono-ethnic society, the Jews as the only foreign body do stick out and attract attention, while in multicultural society they are hardly seen. For this purpose, the Jews support immigration from non-European countries, as their presence would remove the stamp of Jewish exclusiveness. "

1389) The endgame of multiculturalism for Marxian Jews is racial mongrelization of whites, to destroy white Western civilization and build worldwide socialism/communism.

http://www.rense.com/general32/elders.htm

I've read that the "Protocols of Zion" are a forgery that was produced in Russia for the secret police. It is copied from a nineteenth century novel by Hermann Goedsche (Biarritz, 1868) and claims that a secret Jewish cabal is plotting to take over the world.

The Protocols were published in 1920 in a Michigan newspaper started by Henry Ford mainly to attack Jews and Communists. Adolf Hitler later used the Protocols to help justify his attempt to exterminate Jews during World War II.

Be careful about thinking like a collectivist.

[tropicangela]

i recall disagreement re: probable cause and reasonable suspicion before too

[MelissaWV]

i recall disagreement re: probable cause and reasonable suspicion before too

They are two different clauses within the law.

Section 2 is about lawful contact. That's where they see that, for instance, truck with 40 Mexicans in the back that was mentioned earlier with no tags or no registration or whatever it was. Here's a quick test: would that vehicle have been pulled over if there were 40 anything-elses in the back? Of course. It's a vehicle with improper tags/registration, and it has an overloaded truck bed which likely includes unsecured cargo/people. Once that lawful contact is established, the officer can try to determine the legal status of the people in the truck.

Section 6 is about suspecting someone of a removable offense, which includes being in the country illegally. You may arrest someone without a warrant if you suspect them of being in the country illegally. There does not need to be an initial lawful contact for this. It is not mentioned in the law as being necessary in this section at all.

Those two were always the parts being confused and debated. The e-verify portion I mentioned is an afterthought, but these laws are a clever way to get the remaining states on track to start using it.

It's one of those really badly-worded laws that could be exploited, and time was the only way to tell if it ever would be. I would think most officers would avoid arresting someone on suspicion of being illegal, as it'd most likely (if they were wrong) turn into a big to-do. No one wants to be "that guy." It might've been exploited once or twice or even way more times, though, at which point it should have been challenged. This challenge before the fact, and the language of the ruling which basically says "Arizona can't bully people; that's the Federal Government's job!" don't sit well with me.

[AuH20]

A constitutional function of the state. Yep. :D

But really, it depends on how you view the concept of original intent versus the living document and "judicial activism."

Just for the info., would you mind posting the case(s) you're citing here?

Well, given what we know from the two architects of the said document, both Madison and Jefferson would not be fans of an unbridled immigration policy:

James Madison --- Taken from the record of the HoR's 1970 Naturalization Debate:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships8.html


When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.

I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

Jefferson from Notes on the State of Virgina, Query 8 warning of large blocks of foreign nationals moving into the United States. He wasn't opposed to the intrepid individual emigrating, but rather the corrupted collective :


But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together.

Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies.

Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures.

But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?

Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements….

BTW here are three cases of note in which the Supreme Court upheld the state's right to control immigration as they saw fit:

New York v. Miln

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

1847 'License' Cases

[constituent]

Well, given what we know from the two architects of the said documentment, both Madison and Jefferson would not be fans of an unbridled immigration policy:

Agreed, which is why the constitution left the issue up to the states.

Naturalization on the other hand, of which you made note, is another issue altogether. Fedgov was given the power to create a "uniform rule" regarding that. :)



BTW here are three cases of note in which the Supreme Court upheld the state's right to control immigration as they saw fit:

New York v. Miln

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

1847 'License' Cases

Excellent, thanks. :)

[AuH20]

All MSM news agencies are in the business of enforcing THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION.

It would be a major blow to their agenda if their illegal immigration agenda was stopped.

Un-restricted diversity is the destroyer of culture and the facilitator of control. I believe it is outlined in THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

http://theuniversalseduction.com/art...rmed-authentic

"The Protocols identify the moving force of the New World Order with a powerful group of extremely chauvinist, manipulative and domination-obsessed Jewish leaders. The leaders, according to the Protocols, despise ordinary community members; they utilise and support anti-Semitism as the means to keep their "lesser brethren", innocent ordinary folk of Jewish origin, in thrall to their rule. The leaders are described as pathological goy haters, bent on destroying culture and traditions of other nations while preserving their own. Their goal is to create world government and rule the homogenised and globalised world."

"- In a mono-ethnic society, the Jews as the only foreign body do stick out and attract attention, while in multicultural society they are hardly seen. For this purpose, the Jews support immigration from non-European countries, as their presence would remove the stamp of Jewish exclusiveness. "

1389) The endgame of multiculturalism for Marxian Jews is racial mongrelization of whites, to destroy white Western civilization and build worldwide socialism/communism.

http://www.rense.com/general32/elders.htm


Protocols is a hoax.

[angelatc]

Fixed.

Driving requires licensure. Walking doesn't. Standing around with 40 "Mexicans" (you pre-checked their nationality?) doesn't make you an illegal, but it gives police the ability to arrest you without warrant, seeing as you are now suspected of being an illegal.

Good job with the making fun of Spanish, too; that's a nice touch.

I haven't seen the illegal Swede contingent protesting this law en masse. When I do, rest assured that"bork bork bork" will appear shortly.

In my example, said driver could be pulled over because said truck has no tags. In your example, walking, there is no legal reason - no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, nothing - for the police to initiate contact. That argument is lost before it gets to "removable offense."

[MelissaWV]

I haven't seen the illegal Swede contingent protesting this law en masse. When I do, rest assured that"bork bork bork" will appear shortly.

In my example, said driver could be pulled over because said truck has no tags. In your example, walking, there is no legal reason - no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, nothing - for the police to initiate contact. That argument is lost before it gets to "removable offense."

They might be walking near a "known illegal hangout," though. It doesn't matter if the person walking knows it's an illegal hangout. You and I have already HAD this conversation, which is what's stupid about these threads. Hickory claims the law doesn't allow for it, then I post which section I mean, then he vanishes (or continues to claim it doesn't allow, and then it cycles around). John Taylor, were he not banned, would have already mentioned that the Mexicans are invading (legal and illegal) to sway this country towards their Socialist ideals. You and I have talked about establishing profiles.

This happens already. If you are walking along in a "bad neighborhood" and "look like" the drug dealers that the police are about to bust, you are likely to be busted with them. Your protests that you're not a drug dealer will fall on deaf ears, and you'll be swept along with the raid. You might even be wearing "gang colors" which makes you even more suspect. It happens all the time. It's already not right, imo.

What's going on here is that there is obviously to be a profile for illegals. This is a tail-chaser because the law says rather explicitly that no profiling is allowed. Then why is this clause even in here as it is? The law contradicts itself, which is why I keep talking about a one-sentence-fix. You may be arrested without warrant if you are suspected of being an illegal. Okay. What constitutes suspicion? Don't say "it's up to the officers" because we both know that police departments won't let that stay out there without guidance. There would need to be a profile built, which is likely going to clash with the rest of the law. Around and around it goes.

Leave the lawful contact clause in, leave the gang-related stuff in, leave the removal of illegal immigrant criminals clause in... and there is really no need to keep Section 6 as it's written.

I am really REALLY sick and tired of talking about Section 6, and having people then say "nuh uh" and talk about Section 2. Please justify to me why Section 6 must remain precisely as it is. Stop talking about lawful contact, because that is not what Section 6 discusses.

[FBI_Exposer]

The Arizona law forced localities to enforce federal law AND if the localities chose not to then ANYONE could sue the localities into submission until they did.

Can you explain how in the world that is a win for states rights?

Not a chance in hell.

Anyway, the ruling today removed any immigration enforcement part of the bill but left the national id component of the bill in place - which of course goes into effect today for law abiding Arizonans.

Not to mention the fact that this will get appealed all the way up to the supreme court.

I'll take bets right now and give you 2 to 1. The supreme court of the US will end up ruling VOILA that national ids are CONSTITUTIONAL as long as states are the ones voluntarily handing over their citizens data to the feds.

Read the bills, guys. You can't trust ANY politicians. Not even the "good" ones.

[Noob]

The administration is purposely trying to irritate Americans.

It wants a violent response from people, when that happens there
is your excuse for martial law.

I would even say that the law in Arizona was passed just for this reason.

IT ALL STINKS!
GET OUT.

STINKS becuse of NAFTA and the North American Union! I wonder what Montana and Idaho would do if they really went with the North American Union, since these are the only 2 States to pass laws rejecting it. Thow I belive Idaho would just do some grand standing, but than accepte it, as it looks like they want to be the first State to reject Obamacare to accepte Obamacare.



[QUOTE The Arizona law forced localities to enforce federal law AND if the localities chose not to then ANYONE could sue the localities into submission until they did.

Can you explain how in the world that is a win for states rights?

Not a chance in hell.

Anyway, the ruling today removed any immigration enforcement part of the bill but left the national id component of the bill in place - which of course goes into effect today for law abiding Arizonans.

Not to mention the fact that this will get appealed all the way up to the supreme court.

I'll take bets right now and give you 2 to 1. The supreme court of the US will end up ruling VOILA that national ids are CONSTITUTIONAL as long as states are the ones voluntarily handing over their citizens data to the feds.

Read the bills, guys. You can't trust ANY politicians. Not even the "good" ones.[/QUOTE]

Yes this was probley the plan all along, since many States did rejected the Real ID Act.