A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[Quantum Windbag]

You know that if the Feds chose to prosecute for medical marijuana, they could. right? they choose not to. it should actually be de-criminalized totally. we spent ridiculous amounts of money keeping people in jail for a bag of weed. but i digress.

state law is subservient to Federal law. That is basic hornbook con law.

feel free to find a case issued by the supreme court that says otherwise.

hint: neither you nor liability can do so because none exists.

like i said, your premise is patently incorrect.

and the concept that federal law is void ab initio without action by any court is beyond silliness....

D'oh. Why don't you point out that gravity exists now, it has as much bearing on the actual issue as the diversions you keep throwing out.

The issue here is not about individuals ignoring federal law, it is about states doing so. I used medical marijuana because I can point to federal court decisions that say that, just because federal law says it is illegal, that does not exempt local officials from following state law that requires them to issue certificates for people to legally grow marijuana under state law.

San Diego, San Bernardino Counties Must Obey Marijuana Laws: LAist

Why don't you actually address the subject, kinda of like you spent half the thread complaining other people aren't doing? If I am so incorrect, why do federal courts say that officals have to follow state law over federal law?

Why don't you surprise me and actually answer the question instead of trying to pretend you are smarter than me?

your link says the position of this administration is that they aren't doing raids. as i said, if they wanted to, they could.

not quite sure of your point. i suspect neither are you.

i answered your question. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

You answered my question? Where?

 

[Liability]

That is an absurd premise. A State cannot unilaterally decide, absent adjudication by the federal court, that a federal statute violates the U.S. Constitution. And if there is a conflict between the state and federal law, the federal law prevails. You know this.

Of course the State can. It would set up a nice federal appeal, in fact.

Nothing absurd about what I said.

There is something silly about your contention, though.

If the Federal Court then disagrees with the State Court, the State determination goes by the boards. But until then -- you're wrong. And you SHOULD know this.

nonsense... they have to implement the federal law unless and until the court says they don't have to.

there is nothing silly about what i said. if you have precedent from the high court that says otherwise, i look forward to seeing it.

otherwise, what you're saying simply isn't the case.

No. The nonsense comes from you.

Go back and review: Martin v. Hunter's Lessee.

Tell me whether or not Justice Story's analysis agrees with me or with you on the notion that a State's highest Court may rule on Federal issues.

And didn't Justice Story then use some pretty straightforward logic to assert that "it must be true that the Supreme Court can review the decision or the Supreme Court would not have appellate jurisdiction in 'all other cases.' "

It must therefore be conceded that the Constitution not only contemplated, but meant to provide for, cases within the scope of the judicial power of the United States which might yet depend before State tribunals. It was foreseen that, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, State courts would incidentally take cognizance of cases arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States. Yet to all these cases the judicial power, by the very terms of the Constitution, is to extend. It cannot extend by original jurisdiction if that was already rightfully and exclusively attached in the State courts, which (as has been already shown) may occur; it must therefore extend by appellate jurisdiction, or not at all. It would seem to follow that the appellate power of the United States must, in such cases, extend to State tribunals; and if in such cases, there is no reason why it should not equally attach upon all others within the purview of the Constitution.

-- excerpt of opinion by Justice Story Martin v. Hunter's Lessee - 14 U.S. 304 (1816) which may be found at Martin v. Hunter's Lessee - 14 U.S. 304 (1816) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The point is: OF COURSE State's pass upon Federal Constitutional issues. They do it all the time and we all know it. That being said, the Federal Courts plainly have a more important say on the interpretation of the Federal Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Totally wrong?

Federal law says marijuana is always illegal, yet many states allow people to use it with a prescription. Funny thing, not a single court has ever ruled that states can't do that.

Federal law says nothing about flirting, yet it is illegal in Little Rock. Does federal law preempt the law against flirting?

I can keep this up all day. If I was totally wrong you should be able to win by default.

Just saying.

You know that if the Feds chose to prosecute for medical marijuana, they could. right? they choose not to. it should actually be de-criminalized totally. we spent ridiculous amounts of money keeping people in jail for a bag of weed. but i digress.

state law is subservient to Federal law. That is basic hornbook con law.

feel free to find a case issued by the supreme court that says otherwise.

hint: neither you nor liability can do so because none exists.

like i said, your premise is patently incorrect.

and the concept that federal law is void ab initio without action by any court is beyond silliness....

Remember that you’re dealing with graduates from the Mr. Nick School of Law, where the Supreme Court is wrong about everything, up to and including Marbury.

This from the guy who thinks that SCOTUS writes the constitution.

 

[jillian]

Of course the State can. It would set up a nice federal appeal, in fact.

Nothing absurd about what I said.

There is something silly about your contention, though.

If the Federal Court then disagrees with the State Court, the State determination goes by the boards. But until then -- you're wrong. And you SHOULD know this.

nonsense... they have to implement the federal law unless and until the court says they don't have to.

there is nothing silly about what i said. if you have precedent from the high court that says otherwise, i look forward to seeing it.

otherwise, what you're saying simply isn't the case.

No. The nonsense comes from you.

Go back and review: Martin v. Hunter's Lessee.

Tell me whether or not Justice Story's analysis agrees with me or with you on the notion that a State's highest Court may rule on Federal issues.

And didn't Justice Story then use some pretty straightforward logic to assert that "it must be true that the Supreme Court can review the decision or the Supreme Court would not have appellate jurisdiction in 'all other cases.' "

It must therefore be conceded that the Constitution not only contemplated, but meant to provide for, cases within the scope of the judicial power of the United States which might yet depend before State tribunals. It was foreseen that, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, State courts would incidentally take cognizance of cases arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States. Yet to all these cases the judicial power, by the very terms of the Constitution, is to extend. It cannot extend by original jurisdiction if that was already rightfully and exclusively attached in the State courts, which (as has been already shown) may occur; it must therefore extend by appellate jurisdiction, or not at all. It would seem to follow that the appellate power of the United States must, in such cases, extend to State tribunals; and if in such cases, there is no reason why it should not equally attach upon all others within the purview of the Constitution.

-- excerpt of opinion by Justice Story Martin v. Hunter's Lessee - 14 U.S. 304 (1816) which may be found at Martin v. Hunter's Lessee - 14 U.S. 304 (1816) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The point is: OF COURSE State's pass upon Federal Constitutional issues. They do it all the time and we all know it. That being said, the Federal Courts plainly have a more important say on the interpretation of the Federal Constitution.

Justice Story made it very clear that Federal interpretation of Federal law will always trump State interpretation of Federal Law. That doesn't contradict what i said.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The supremacy of Federal law has been an established and settled doctrine since the First Quarter of the 19th Century:

"In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."

Gibbons v. Ogden

 

[Liability]

nonsense... they have to implement the federal law unless and until the court says they don't have to.

there is nothing silly about what i said. if you have precedent from the high court that says otherwise, i look forward to seeing it.

otherwise, what you're saying simply isn't the case.

No. The nonsense comes from you.

Go back and review: Martin v. Hunter's Lessee.

Tell me whether or not Justice Story's analysis agrees with me or with you on the notion that a State's highest Court may rule on Federal issues.

And didn't Justice Story then use some pretty straightforward logic to assert that "it must be true that the Supreme Court can review the decision or the Supreme Court would not have appellate jurisdiction in 'all other cases.' "

It must therefore be conceded that the Constitution not only contemplated, but meant to provide for, cases within the scope of the judicial power of the United States which might yet depend before State tribunals. It was foreseen that, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, State courts would incidentally take cognizance of cases arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States. Yet to all these cases the judicial power, by the very terms of the Constitution, is to extend. It cannot extend by original jurisdiction if that was already rightfully and exclusively attached in the State courts, which (as has been already shown) may occur; it must therefore extend by appellate jurisdiction, or not at all. It would seem to follow that the appellate power of the United States must, in such cases, extend to State tribunals; and if in such cases, there is no reason why it should not equally attach upon all others within the purview of the Constitution.

-- excerpt of opinion by Justice Story Martin v. Hunter's Lessee - 14 U.S. 304 (1816) which may be found at Martin v. Hunter's Lessee - 14 U.S. 304 (1816) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The point is: OF COURSE State's pass upon Federal Constitutional issues. They do it all the time and we all know it. That being said, the Federal Courts plainly have a more important say on the interpretation of the Federal Constitution.

Justice Story made it very clear that Federal interpretation of Federal law will always trump State interpretation of Federal Law. That doesn't contradict what i said.

I also didn't contradict what you said about THAT. But YOU contradicted what I said. Sadly, you did so even though I was right.

A state court most assuredly MAY judge the legitimacy of a federal law; but in turn the SUPREME COURT has the authority to overturn the State Court's determination.

That makes good sense and I don't deny it.

But I still say that there is clearly authority that proves that a state may pass judgment on federal acts. In fact, that's exactly what had happened in the Virgina Court underlying the SCOTUS decision in Hunter v. Martin's Lessee.

Here. Repeat after me: "Damn it Liability! You were right again."

 

[Artevelde]

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

Where in the Arizona law does the State of Arizona tell the Federal authorities what to do. The only thing the law does is facilitate the enforcement of Federal law. How is that against the supremacy clause?

I also notice you didn't answer my question.

Yes she did.


You answered her OP question with a question then you responded to her answer with another question, then hilariously you claim to know more...I'm sure all your confused friends will slap you a high fiver rep for attacking Jill, though.

Too bad reading is a bit too challenging for you.

 

[Artevelde]

Here's the thing , from a practical point of view if the law is upheld look at it like this. Each time Law Enforcement comes across someone that is suspected as being illegal, then the contact is made with Federal authorities. If ICE, refuses to pick them up , or states, let them go, or we don't have the time, then eventually as most of the agencies here in Arizona's funds are already stretched to the limit they will eventually stop enforcing it in several locations. Further, SB-1070 much like a whole host of other laws passed by our state legislature based on unrealistic and not practical views will end up costing the state more money to enforce it. If for example as in the case with Sheriff Joe local Law enforcement detains someone after they have been told by ICE we are not going to pick them up, then that gives rise to another issue with unlawfully detaining an individual. Personally I cannot see how Arizona can make it a misdemeanor to be here illegally subject to Arizona Law with state punishment involved when that clearly is a violation of the Supremacy Clause.


A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

It would seem to me that in so doing the state of Arizona in that case there are little over-stepping their bounds as it provides for remedies for violations of Federal Law.

It doesn't matter however, from a practical standpoint this law depends on ICE willingness to take on the burden of accepting each of the people they arrest and as ICE is stretched thin enough already and with little invetment coming then it all becomes mute other than say perhaps something for a few in the State House to pound their chests over. I would say this though. with the changing demographics in our state, our officials should be careful what they wish for because sooner rather than later I would rather imagine SB-1070 will be a thing of the past.

The only reason ICE would be unwilling, IMO, is because they have their own goals, namely deporting the actual criminals, not just your average visa violator or border sneaker.

So unless the states are willing to fund ICE through the federal level this entire law is pretty silly. And makes Arizona look like xenophobes.

So enforcing federal law is xenophobic?

 

[Artevelde]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

Not sure how this shows anything I said to be a strawman.

You keep claiming that the Feds aren't doing their job.

Obviously, they are.

In that case there certainly can't be a problem with thaty Arizona law and the illegal immigrants who are detained will be switfly deported.

 

[Artevelde]

That might be true. But it is not relevant to the topic.

The Administration (like past Administrations) does enforce immigration laws against those who find themselves ensnared in the criminal justice system. It doesn't even always take a criminal conviction to lead to removal proceedings being started.

The topic, however, deals with more than just those aliens who have committed crimes.

UNLESS an alien is convicted of a crime (however they define "conviction" -- which is not always as you might assume), the Federal Government appears to be unwilling to deport those found to BE here illegally.

That was kind of the point of the Arizona law. A cop stops a person for valid law enforcement purposes, asks some pretty basic questions, finds out that the individual in question is HERE illegally and then proceeds to advise the Federal immigration authorities.

How exactly is that improper behavior by any State?

And again, why the fuck would the Federal Government object, much less find it desirable to oppose the AZ law in Court?

Right, because the immigration courts are clogged. So they are dropping cases to concentrate on getting rid of the criminal aliens.

The answer is not to do what Arizona did. The answer is to FUND more immigration courts and ICE employees. There is no reason at all for the FED to put their limited resources to work because Arizona legislators are xenophobic panderers.

No. That's one possible answer. But another answer is for Arizona to do EXACTLY what it did -- something about which the Federal government has no basis in logic or the law to complain.

When Arizona -- a state which has borne a harsh brunt of the illegal immigration problem -- passed the law, it was acting on behalf of its people. Perfectly valid effort. When the cops comply with that law and notify ICE of the presence of an illegal, the FEDS (oh those poor overburdened folks) COULD say "hey thanks! We'll be right over." And the Immigration Courts -- which are administered in one of the most peculiar fashions in the history of administrative entities -- COULD fix their own house and DEAL with the mess.

If we are going to continue to be a sovereign nation, we really must make some significant efforts to attend to matters of sovereignty. Immigration is one of those things. No nation which cannot manage its own borders and immigrants can survive very long AS a sovereign nation. We do have a right to limit the numbers of outsiders who are granted permission to enter. We DO have the right -- even the duty -- to manage it in our own best national interests. And we do have an obligation ot enfoce those laws and evict the trespassers.

Very true.

 

[Artevelde]

That's the question.

No. It really isn't. The QUESTION is what happens when AZ rounds up SUSPECTED "illegals" who don't have their papers and the feds tell them to pound salt?

Not to mention, we're talking about someone who might be here legally, running out without his "papers" to buy milk at night, getting pulled over and detained and held for who knows how long.

i'm sure that doesn't concern you, though.

Round up?

Where does that "round up" thing come from?

From the usual grasping at straws and trying to confuse the issue by trying to demonize a particular initiative by distorting it.

 

[Artevelde]

The one thing that is pretty clear from this thread is that the opponents of this Arizona law aren't opposed to it because it allegedly violates the Constitutional supremacy clause but because it has the effect of confronting the Federal authorities with their responsibility under existing Federal law.

 

[sitarro]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

They have been enforcing immigration laws all along. This is just a way to harass people who "look like immigrants" and that's really how the Court should have looked at it. But I don't expect much from this particular Court anymore.

I think the latter will be the result.

At which point there will be lawsuts against AZ for unlawfully detaining people.

Sounds like a great opportunity for America hating, ambulance chasing lawyers..........I wonder if anyone from this board will be relocating to Arizona.

 

[Dr Grump]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

They have been enforcing immigration laws all along. This is just a way to harass people who "look like immigrants" and that's really how the Court should have looked at it. But I don't expect much from this particular Court anymore.

I think the latter will be the result.

At which point there will be lawsuts against AZ for unlawfully detaining people.

Sounds like a great opportunity for America hating, ambulance chasing lawyers..........I wonder if anyone from this board will be relocating to Arizona.

1) You're not a lawyer
2) If you moved from Texas to Arizona you'd raise the IQ of both places.
3) How's the baggage handling business Mr failed photographer?

 

[Liability]

Well, yes...... and no.

There is a philosophical and moral reason to oppose this law. I set forth a bit in my post above about possible abuses. Also, having come from the background that I do, the thought of being required to carry "papers" for any american is abhorent and the images it conjures for me make my skin crawl. Remember, it isn't only illegals who will be stopped. Say you're a first generation, spanish speaking man. You were born here, you're a citizen. You don't believe you need to carry "papers" and, in fact, why would you? You don't. I don't. Why should that person? Because they look hispanic? Because they may have an accent? I have a moral problem with that. I do.

And if the moral issue doesn't rock you. The fiscal issue might... There are limited resources. They need to be spent as efficiently and as beneficially as possible. I suspect THAT is the reason that the administration is doing a better job on getting rid of illegals who have committed crimes... they are targeting their resources. I'd disagree that it has anything to do with the Dream Act. I think it's more that they want to show that they're not hostile to hispanics, only to criminals.... which makes sense to me, politically.

If we wish to make sure that our national sovereign right to control our own borders and control who is and who is not authorized to BE here as our guests is preserved, then we have to concede some method for doing those things.

The emotionally-charged "papers please" argument is not going to change that.

The fiscal argument is even less persuasive. We do have fiscal problems. But only the most vapid of "limited government" proponents would argue that spending money on the LEGITIMATE purposes for the existence of a government is a violation of that precept.

Does it make SOME sense to place a higher value on targeting illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes while here? Yep.

Does that mean that we should not ALSO go about the business of removing other trespassers, too? Nope.

I don't believe we ever have to conced the right way of doing things for expediency. I think if we're no more moral than groups we despise, then there isn't anything to protect.

That said, and to get back to my initial area of interest... what happens to these people when the Fed tells them to get lost? You have 50 states. If each passes similar laws, and each is constantly whining to the feds... then what? What can a state compel the federal government to do? I don't think they can compel the Feds to do anything to enforce a State law. I'm pretty sure this particular court won't see it that way and there will be years of litigation on the subject.

As for money.... i think we have more important things to spend money on than removing peaceful people who haven't committed any crimes... like pay for infrastructure.... like pay for education... etc.

Buy the premise, buy the movie. But reject the premise and the movie becomes fodder for the Razzies.

I reject your premise. We are not conceding the right way of doing things. (I presume you mean to be understood to contend that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question about where they come from is doing things in some nebulous "wrong way").

No matter how you strive to reframe it: we have a right to insist that those folks who are here are either citizens or otherwise admitted properly and permitted to remain here. Asking them such a question is far from improper. Calling for some kind of documentation to verify it is also not improper.


And your "let's get back to 'my' question concern is similarly unpersuasive. If all 50 states had the identical law as Arizona, that would entail ONLY calling upon our illustrious Federal Government to do something ABOUT the very thing the FEDERAL Law is created TO address. I will not pretend to be "sorry for the inconvenience" to the "Federal Government" when I call upon them to DO THEIR JOB.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I love when you look at all of these arguments in conjunction with last year's mantra that we can't decide what to do to stem the flow of illegal immigrants over the border until we figure out what to do with the ones already here. That makes sense. Same logic as on a ship at sea. If you have a hole in your hull and water's pouring in, you don't plug that hole until you've thoroughly drained the water that already made it in, right? That's just smart policy.

Now the Federal government has decided to drag its heels about doing anything about the illegal immigrants in this country since there's not currently enough support in the house to give them all amnesty. Well, how convenient. Let's just say fuck it and not do anything at all. Give the road a nice, steep, downhill gradient before we kick the can down it. Make sure that fucker bounces a good God damn long way.

 

[BDBoop]

If we wish to make sure that our national sovereign right to control our own borders and control who is and who is not authorized to BE here as our guests is preserved, then we have to concede some method for doing those things.

The emotionally-charged "papers please" argument is not going to change that.

The fiscal argument is even less persuasive. We do have fiscal problems. But only the most vapid of "limited government" proponents would argue that spending money on the LEGITIMATE purposes for the existence of a government is a violation of that precept.

Does it make SOME sense to place a higher value on targeting illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes while here? Yep.

Does that mean that we should not ALSO go about the business of removing other trespassers, too? Nope.

I don't believe we ever have to conced the right way of doing things for expediency. I think if we're no more moral than groups we despise, then there isn't anything to protect.

That said, and to get back to my initial area of interest... what happens to these people when the Fed tells them to get lost? You have 50 states. If each passes similar laws, and each is constantly whining to the feds... then what? What can a state compel the federal government to do? I don't think they can compel the Feds to do anything to enforce a State law. I'm pretty sure this particular court won't see it that way and there will be years of litigation on the subject.

As for money.... i think we have more important things to spend money on than removing peaceful people who haven't committed any crimes... like pay for infrastructure.... like pay for education... etc.

Buy the premise, buy the move. But reject the premise and the movie becomes fodder for the Razzies.

I reject your premise. We are not conceding the right way of doing things. (I presume you mean to be understood to contend that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question about where they come from is doing things in some nebulous "wrong way").

No matter how you strive to reframe it: we have a right to insist that those folks who are here are either citizens or otherwise admitted properly and permitted to remain here. Asking them such a question is far from improper. Calling for some kind of documentation to verify it is also not improper.


And your "let's get back to 'my' question concern is similarly unpersuasive. If all 50 states had the identical law as Arizona, that would entail ONLY calling upon our illustrious Federal Government to do something ABOUT the very thing the FEDERAL Law is created TO address. I will not pretend to be "sorry for the inconvenience" to the "Federal Government" when I call upon them to DO THEIR JOB.

Doesn't that mean we have to be pulling people over based on what they look like, and we're only actually dealing with 'brown aliens'?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This immigration issue is also a particularly disturbing one in that it illustrates just how far we've fallen from being a nation of laws. If you give the Federal Government a pass on adhering to a hard standard (THE LAW), then you're effectively telling them that they can do whatever they want. Absolute power for a group of people whose souls, by en large, are for sale to the highest bidder, and our blind, sheep-like populace is willing to sign off on it whenever ignoring the law furthers an agenda with which they identify.

This isn't aimed just at President Obama, but any leader at any level of our government who displays a willingness to ignore laws that he's decided don't suit him is, at worst, a tyrant. At best, he paves a convenient road of precedent for future tyrants.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Last axe to grind on this post. . . racial profiling.

I see a lot of people arguing that the AZ law should be shot down as unconstitutional because its reasonable to assume that some officers in AZ will probably apply the law in an unfair proportion to people who look Mexican. Mind you, there's nothing in the law that singles out Mexicans or brown people. . . the racial profiling concerns are an assumption, based on the common perception (LOL. . . the -fact-) that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants in that area are from Mexico, that some police will be prone to racism and will target only brown people.

This, I must tell you, is a bullshit argument.

There's also widely held perceptions in many areas that, in those areas, people who use crack cocaine are, by en large, people of color. Likewise, in other places, it's a commonly held perception that meth is a drug used, in those areas, primarily by white people. Therefore, we must likewise assume that, in such areas, the enforcement of laws restricting possession of cocaine and meth will, by some officers, be unfairly applied to people only of one particular race. Should we therefore cease to enforce these laws, as well?

Should it -only- be laws where the perception is that offenders are mostly of one race in the state in question that we stop enforcing? Or maybe all laws? Is it crazy to assume that, since there's bound to be police in every state who, knowingly or unknowingly, apply laws unfairly between people of different colors, the enforcement of any law will lead to some amount of racial profiling? Since the widespread enforcement of -any- law leads to many cases of that law being applied unfairly by a racist police officer, wouldn't shutting down AZ's immigration statute for this reason imply that we should shut down -all- laws to avoid discrimination?

On top of that, I gotta say that I honestly can't see how using racial profiling to enforce immigration laws in Arizona is such a horribly immoral idea. I know that sounds racist to many of you, but it's just logical. In Arizona, everyone is well aware of which border the immigrants are crossing. . . the only one that separates Arizona from the only foreign country bordering it. Considering that Arizona's land locked, they're also well aware that it's all land-based traffic from said country. When all the illegal immigrants in your state are coming from a Central American country, it's not only not racist, but it's common sense that you would, when enforcing immigration laws, expect that the majority of the offenders you find are going to be from Central America. You wouldn't be looking for papers on blonde haired, blue eyed folks as much because YOU DONT BORDER GERMANY.

There's a difference between being racially tolerant and pretending not to be aware of a fact that perpetuates a stereotype. In this case, the stereotype is that illegal immigrants are Mexican and vice versa. The fact that people seem to be in favor of ignoring is that, in AZ, the vast majority of the illegal immigrants ARE Mexican. Pretending that this isn't the case and trying to round up as many illegals from Europe as you do from Mexico isn't being racially sensitive, it's being fucking retarded and ignoring reality.

 

[jillian]

If we wish to make sure that our national sovereign right to control our own borders and control who is and who is not authorized to BE here as our guests is preserved, then we have to concede some method for doing those things.

The emotionally-charged "papers please" argument is not going to change that.

The fiscal argument is even less persuasive. We do have fiscal problems. But only the most vapid of "limited government" proponents would argue that spending money on the LEGITIMATE purposes for the existence of a government is a violation of that precept.

Does it make SOME sense to place a higher value on targeting illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes while here? Yep.

Does that mean that we should not ALSO go about the business of removing other trespassers, too? Nope.

I don't believe we ever have to conced the right way of doing things for expediency. I think if we're no more moral than groups we despise, then there isn't anything to protect.

That said, and to get back to my initial area of interest... what happens to these people when the Fed tells them to get lost? You have 50 states. If each passes similar laws, and each is constantly whining to the feds... then what? What can a state compel the federal government to do? I don't think they can compel the Feds to do anything to enforce a State law. I'm pretty sure this particular court won't see it that way and there will be years of litigation on the subject.

As for money.... i think we have more important things to spend money on than removing peaceful people who haven't committed any crimes... like pay for infrastructure.... like pay for education... etc.

Buy the premise, buy the move. But reject the premise and the movie becomes fodder for the Razzies.

I reject your premise. We are not conceding the right way of doing things. (I presume you mean to be understood to contend that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question about where they come from is doing things in some nebulous "wrong way").

No matter how you strive to reframe it: we have a right to insist that those folks who are here are either citizens or otherwise admitted properly and permitted to remain here. Asking them such a question is far from improper. Calling for some kind of documentation to verify it is also not improper.

And your "let's get back to 'my' question concern is similarly unpersuasive. If all 50 states had the identical law as Arizona, that would entail ONLY calling upon our illustrious Federal Government to do something ABOUT the very thing the FEDERAL Law is created TO address. I will not pretend to be "sorry for the inconvenience" to the "Federal Government" when I call upon them to DO THEIR JOB.

I understand you "reject [my] premise". But my premise is not that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question is improper. My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for. If you look hispanic, or speak with an accent, does that mean you should have to be subjected to a constant barrage of police action?

What if that action, instead of being directed at darker skiinned hispanics, was directed at big, burly, redheaded guys who might (or might not) be off the boat Irish? Does that change your paradigm?

As for geting back to my basic question. I have zero interest in yet another "i hate immigrants"/"you're a racist" back and forth rants. I wanted, and phrased my question specifically to get, an intelligent analysis from intelligent people about the actual reality left behind should the more onorous requirements of the AZ bill be allowed to stand. To that extent, I think the thread is largely successful, notwithstanding a few subliterate intellectual ciphers.

So whether you reject my premise or not, thanks for contributing to an interesting discussioin on the issue.