Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

A state has to justify its laws when sued over questions of constitutionality, i.e. in court. It then has to make its case why they think the law is constitutional.

And then, it can be argued, and it will be, that Arizona, because they legislated into the federal domain, themselves violated the rule of law. That's the point behind supremacy of federal law and the reason why there can be pre-emption. Second, you assert that the Feds don't enforce immigration laws. On what basis? You may subjectively feel they don't do enough, but it will be very hard for you to make a reasonable argument that they do not enforce their laws.

 

A state has to explain why it passed the law in the first place when it's constitutionality is challenged? That seems odd.

As for stepping on the Fed's toes, the numerous other states that have immigration laws overlapping theirs tells me that argument is far from that simple. You may be able to reasonably argue it in court, but that doesn't mean the Court would agree with you.

As for the lack of enforcement, I could cite the millions of illegal immigrants in the US, the lack of work-place raids after some people raised a stink, or the numerous claims from various states (I haven't found confirmation, but it's not subjective at least) that ICE deports noticeably fewer illegals than they hand over.

 

And the court just might agree ... and as for why the law might be, and IMO is, unconstitutional - I made my case. Take it or leave it.

In closing: First, when the matter goes to court, of course states will have to justify themselves in court i.e. explain why they think their law is constitutional. And the Feds will have to make their case as to why they hold the view that the law is unconstitutional. That's why that game is called 'judicial review'. What's so unusual or hard to understand about that?

Second, as for the 'obvious lack of enforcement' thesis: That there are a lot of illegal immigrants in the US doesn't mean there is no enforcement.

 

Well yes, Ragusa. Judging by the amount of crime and the amount of criminals we have in the US, there must not be any "law enforcement" at ANY level.

 

Let me put it this way. How would this law be different from California's illegal immigration employment laws? By your arguement, it seems they should both be unconstitutional.

There's a difference between a blanket justification and defending yourself from an accusation. A huge difference. The way you described the process, you made it sound like the state would have to show that there was sufficient reason to have the law in the first place, regardless of constitutional issues, and only then could it defend itself from the accusation of 'unconstitutional'.

No, it doesn't, and I'm not saying there isn't any enforcement. I'm saying the enforcement there is is insufficient. Whether that's due to political pressure, lack of funding, lack of man-power, lack of technology, or whatever, it shows that the Feds can't do the job by themselves as they are now.

 

Why don't you just exchange 'have to justify' with 'have to make their case'? It essentially means the same thing, and you won't be as upset.

 

Just for clarity's sake, are you talking about defending themselves from the accusation of unconstitutionality, or explaining what purpose the law serves and why it should exist in the first place (outside of constitutionality). The latter is what I read from your post, while the former is what makes sense to me. If you meant the former, then I just got confused for a bit. If you meant the latter... well, I'm still confused a bit, but not by anyone's fault here.

 

Any modern nation state has the right to control its borders and control who enters the country. To me, that's a fundamental principal of any country. If I lived in a place like Arizona and saw the federal government not doing its job -- that is to say, not securing the border-- I'd be PO'd too and turn to whatever level of government that would do something to protect me andf my family from illegal aliens.

I feel for the people crossing the border, I truly do. A good number of them just want to make a better life for their families. But that does not give them tne right to break the laws of the United States by entering the country illegally. Call it what you will, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the citizens of the United States wanting all people coming to the country to have undergone some screening and training about the way of life in the country.

 

That's not the issue. That is an issue and a large one. But that's not the issue regarding the new law. The issue is if a racist law solves the problem, which it doesn't in the opinion of the law's detractors. It's real citizens who need to fear this law more so than those who are illegals.

 

I think what CtR means is if you are a legally born US citizen, but don't have a driver's license, how do you prove to a police officer that you are NOT an illegal alien? This law allows officers to demand proof of citizenship if you look suspicious to them. I mean, it's not like you can show him your green card, because you don't have one, because you were born here. They could eventually determine you were born here (i.e., via birth certificate, but no one carries that on them), but that wouldn't save the guy from being detained until that happens.

 

Further more, it means if you don't want to get harrassed, you have to start carrying ID with you at all times. I would prefer not to have to do this were I live. But, if I lived in an area in Arizona were Illegals were causing lots of trouble, I would prefer to put up with ID checks than letting violence happen again and again. I would prefer ID Checks and safety compared to sleeping with one eye open and watching my back at all times. Tough choices in Arizona. Only time would tell if the solution was effective if implemented.

My cubemate at work used to live in Tuscon. She told me it's beautiful, but you had to lock your car and your home at all times or you would be a victim of theft, gauranteed. CBP choppers would fly over their homes daily. I prefer living in peace myself. - It's not like I live in a wonderful area now, but it's better than what has been described to me about AZ.

 

Hmm, let's see....if the police can start checking IDs because you look suspiciously like an illegal immigrant... which means you will need to have your ID on you to avoid this. I'm not getting your response BTA.

 

Sure.

These are pretty bold charges, IMO. But this is the view from the hard left. We can debate the lack of fairness, since it's pretty much the same as how the hard right targets Obama as a "communist-Marxist," the hard left sees the Arizona law clan as the racist, "neo-nazis." But there is no doubt that racist cops will be using this new law to harass those who are here legally. I can't say if the law is intended to be racist, since there is evidence on both sides that it may or may not be, but racism will be an unintended consequence of the law, regardless. All Hispanic people in AZ CAN be presumed guilty until they can prove otherwise. That sounds pretty racist to me.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/profiling-arizona-legislator-russell

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...ates-constitution-guarantees-racial-profiling

Yes, some certainly will. It's in the nature of some cops to be abusive in that manner.

 

Of course under the bill the police will not pull over people because they are Hispanics (i.e look suspiciously like an illegal immigrant), after all the bill doesn't envision racial profiling. They will pull over Hispanics because of, say, erratic driving, and both cops in the car will have seen that and testify to that in court if need be. Thus, there has been no racial profiling, just 'reasonable cause' of something other than being Hispanic.

 

It's about time they pulled over the slow driving cars....

 

I'm sorry, but the 'racist' claim is complete liberal BS and you should know better, Chandos. MSNBC, the nuts on the street, maybe not, but you should. There is nothing 'racist' about this law and, considering the modifications that have now been made to it, there isn't even much chance of racial profiling any more (at least, no more chance then there already was). Police now can only ask for identification after detaining someone for suspicion of another crime.

This is also a load of propaganda. The term 'reasonable suspicion' is one every lawyer and police officer in the US should be intimately familiar with. It's a legally defined term in the US, and a common legal standard, as I understand it. Police couldn't just pull you over for 'looking suspicious'. They would have to meet the legal criteria. And if they didn't, you could sue them.

If this is the case, it isn't the law that needs to be worked on. This level of conspiracy and corruption is on par with the 'gun drop' and 'drug drop' charges against the LAPD by blacks decades ago (where blacks accused white cops of arresting or even shooting innocent young black teens and then planting guns or drugs in plain sight to claim reasonable suspicion).


I'm sorry, but the liberal news (and this case makes it pretty clear which ones are liberal and which ones aren't) has really shown itself to be one huge a****** in this case, with blatant propaganda and outright lies that are being repeated across the nation by people who don't know any better. And to hear the President of the United States, US Senators, and US Representatives back it is disgusting. 30 seconds of fact-checking could correct this, but no one does it.