SB 1070: Most Controversial Component IS Constitutional

[Night Strike]

the deportation is not illegal, no. The illegal part is requiring everyone to carry ID or risk being accused of being a non-citizen, and particularly the profiling that is likely to result in a good many citizens being harassed because some police happen to think they might be illegal.

Why is that illegal?

I will leave that to the attorneys to fight out. "Equal protection" is one argument. Another is whether the state even has the right to mandate citizenship requirements (federal versus state jurisdictions).

The federal government "steps in" all the time when they deem states aren't doing a good enough job of various things in their eyes. Why are the states suddenly not allowed to take care of the problems the federal government refuses to deal with?


By the way, Janet Napolitano is an official liar who spouts whatever line the Democrats want her to puppet. As the governor of Arizona, she repeatedly petitioned the federal government for help on the border, but once she works in the administration, she says that the border situation is better than ever. At best it shows how out of touch she is from her state, and at worst shows how she immediately threw her state's citizens under the bus to work in the administration.

[Metsfanmax]

the deportation is not illegal, no. The illegal part is requiring everyone to carry ID or risk being accused of being a non-citizen, and particularly the profiling that is likely to result in a good many citizens being harassed because some police happen to think they might be illegal.

The law doesn't require people to carry identification, it only asks them to be able to provide it if a police officer asks for it.

[Timminz]

As long as you don't look like a "criminal", this law does not apply, so chilllax dudes. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you gots nuthin to worry about.

[Night Strike]

As long as you don't look like a "criminal", this law does not apply, so chilllax dudes. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you gots nuthin to worry about.

This law works the same way as secondary seat-belt laws work: you can only get ticketed for not wearing a seat belt if you're pulled over for some other moving violation. Likewise, you can only be asked your citizenship if you're stopped for doing some other violation.

[PLAYER57832]

the deportation is not illegal, no. The illegal part is requiring everyone to carry ID or risk being accused of being a non-citizen, and particularly the profiling that is likely to result in a good many citizens being harassed because some police happen to think they might be illegal.

Why is that illegal?

I will leave that to the attorneys to fight out. "Equal protection" is one argument. Another is whether the state even has the right to mandate citizenship requirements (federal versus state jurisdictions).

The federal government "steps in" all the time when they deem states aren't doing a good enough job of various things in their eyes. Why are the states suddenly not allowed to take care of the problems the federal government refuses to deal with?

There is this little bit about the federal government superceding states. As for "not dealing with it", those who say that are the very ones impeding implementation of the REAL solutions.. namely putting the focus on employment and taxes, as opposed to this idea that simply being here should be a crime.

[PLAYER57832]

As long as you don't look like a "criminal", this law does not apply, so chilllax dudes. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you gots nuthin to worry about.

This law works the same way as secondary seat-belt laws work: you can only get ticketed for not wearing a seat belt if you're pulled over for some other moving violation. Likewise, you can only be asked your citizenship if you're stopped for doing some other violation.

#1 No. While requiring police to verify legal status of anyone they come into contact with for other reasons (i.e. making it a secondary offense) is a part of the law, the law ALSO makes "supicion of legality" a PRIMARY offense, that, in itself, is enough to warrent these checks. Specifically listed as warranting of suspicion are "having an accent", race, etc.

#2. Whereas wearing a seatbelt is a requirement for driving, carrying ID has never been a requirement of someone who was born in this country or who happens to have had the misfortune to be born in Arizona. And no, carrying ID is in no way comparative to your other big beef, health care, because we are all, ultimately have to pay for your medical care. Carrying ID is a new requirement.

#3. Again, I find it interesting that people who, in most other references, are the first to shout "no impingement on my freedoms" are so perfectly willing to ignore what is, historically among the first steps required of many totalitarian and repressive regimes -- requiring that everyone certify their "right to be present" wherever they are.

[Night Strike]

There is this little bit about the federal government superceding states. As for "not dealing with it", those who say that are the very ones impeding implementation of the REAL solutions.. namely putting the focus on employment and taxes, as opposed to this idea that simply being here should be a crime.

Except that the Arizona law is the SAME AS the federal law, so there is no conflict. It states that if you are not a citizen of this country or here legally, then you can be arrested by state officials. The federal law states the same thing, but federal agents aren't enforcing it, so now Arizona officials have the power to enforce it.

#1 No. While requiring police to verify legal status of anyone they come into contact with for other reasons (i.e. making it a secondary offense) is a part of the law, the law ALSO makes "supicion of legality" a PRIMARY offense, that, in itself, is enough to warrent these checks. Specifically listed as warranting of suspicion are "having an accent", race, etc.

#2. Whereas wearing a seatbelt is a requirement for driving, carrying ID has never been a requirement of someone who was born in this country or who happens to have had the misfortune to be born in Arizona. And no, carrying ID is in no way comparative to your other big beef, health care, because we are all, ultimately have to pay for your medical care. Carrying ID is a new requirement.

#3. Again, I find it interesting that people who, in most other references, are the first to shout "no impingement on my freedoms" are so perfectly willing to ignore what is, historically among the first steps required of many totalitarian and repressive regimes -- requiring that everyone certify their "right to be present" wherever they are.

#1: The law explicitly states you can't suspect someone simply because of their race, so your argument has no credibility.

#2: Seatbelt is a requirement of driving because the STATE makes it one. Carrying an ID is a requirement for nearly every action in the entire nation (getting a job, getting insurance, getting a loan, etc.), yet it can't be used to determine if someone is legally present? What a joke!!
By the way, with your health care mandate, I'm now forced to buy insurance and buy it at higher premiums since high-risk people can no longer be charged higher rates. I get penalized for my good health simply because others aren't allowed to be penalized for their poor health/choices. Your argument about being force to pay for other cuts both ways.

#3: The only infringements on our rights is because the federal government refuses to secure our country in the first place. If we had a secure border, we wouldn't need to prove OUR identities when getting a job, etc. Since we have to use our IDs in those instances, it's only logical that people supply them to prove they're lawfully here.

[PLAYER57832]

There is this little bit about the federal government superceding states. As for "not dealing with it", those who say that are the very ones impeding implementation of the REAL solutions.. namely putting the focus on employment and taxes, as opposed to this idea that simply being here should be a crime.

Except that the Arizona law is the SAME AS the federal law, so there is no conflict. It states that if you are not a citizen of this country or here legally, then you can be arrested by state officials. The federal law states the same thing, but federal agents aren't enforcing it, so now Arizona officials have the power to enforce it.

This is a technicality that will no doubt be among the issues decided by the Supreme court. As of now, state and federal jurisdictions do differ. A state CA highway patrol, for example cannot issue a speeding ticket within Yosemite National Park. (or even within the Allegheny National Forest).

#1 No. While requiring police to verify legal status of anyone they come into contact with for other reasons (i.e. making it a secondary offense) is a part of the law, the law ALSO makes "supicion of legality" a PRIMARY offense, that, in itself, is enough to warrent these checks. Specifically listed as warranting of suspicion are "having an accent", race, etc.

#2. Whereas wearing a seatbelt is a requirement for driving, carrying ID has never been a requirement of someone who was born in this country or who happens to have had the misfortune to be born in Arizona. And no, carrying ID is in no way comparative to your other big beef, health care, because we are all, ultimately have to pay for your medical care. Carrying ID is a new requirement.

#3. Again, I find it interesting that people who, in most other references, are the first to shout "no impingement on my freedoms" are so perfectly willing to ignore what is, historically among the first steps required of many totalitarian and repressive regimes -- requiring that everyone certify their "right to be present" wherever they are.

#1: The law explicitly states you can't suspect someone simply because of their race, so your argument has no credibility.

Technically, not even true because it also says "except as allowed by the constitution". There is a real question on how the constitution might be seen to protect suspected non-citizens. Also, many have gone on record as saying that race and accents, etc are valid reasons to question ethnicity.

Furthermore, if you read through the rest of the legislation, there are quite a few holes. Simple suspicion of a minor traffic violation is enough. So "oops, well I thought I heard a faulty muffler, but I can see that yours is brand new".. "but may I please see proof of citizenship for you and all your passengers now?" would be perfectly legal.

#2: Seatbelt is a requirement of driving because the STATE makes it one. Carrying an ID is a requirement for nearly every action in the entire nation (getting a job, getting insurance, getting a loan, etc.), yet it can't be used to determine if someone is legally present? What a joke!!

[/quote]
You are not required to carry ID unless you are engaging in certain activities. Sure, you have to have ID to apply for a job, because they need to be sure you are who you say you are, that checks will go to the correct person, etc. The same with those other examples. Further, none of those involve any kind of criminal penalty. This does. It involves a penalty simply for not carrying ID.

The biggest problem here is that this sets up a state of "suspicion until PROVEN not guilty" instead of the reverse, which is what our constitution requires. The onus, up to now, was on police to PROVE that people are illegal. Now, the onus is on people to PROVE that they are legal. Big difference!

By the way, with your health care mandate, I'm now forced to buy insurance and buy it at higher premiums since high-risk people can no longer be charged higher rates. I get penalized for my good health simply because others aren't allowed to be penalized for their poor health/choices. Your argument about being force to pay for other cuts both ways.

No, but we covered that on the health care bill. Among other issues, high health care costs are only sometimes tied to poor health choices. Limitations based on poor choices are allowed under some circumstances (employers can not hire smokers, for example). Even type II diabetes is as much genetics as behavior.

#3: The only infringements on our rights is because the federal government refuses to secure our country in the first place. If we had a secure border, we wouldn't need to prove OUR identities when getting a job, etc. Since we have to use our IDs in those instances, it's only logical that people supply them to prove they're lawfully here.

Baloney.

This is the classic argument of imperialist and totalitarian regimes everywhere. "we need to do this to protect YOUR security". Just like Japanese had to be interned, Italiens were forbidden from being too close to the Pacific Coast. And just like "Africans" were required to carry ID allowing them to be outside their designated townships or face penalty.

And, the facts are it just doesn't work. Violance at the border, drug trafficking, etc have all INCREASED. And, more of those who do cross are actual, true criminals now. (though a good many are still just people who are incredibly desperate)

Contrast this with concentrating on employers, even legalizing people who are here as long as they are able to support themselves (and pay taxes!) and the cost-benefit far, far outweighs this idea that an armed camp is the way to go.

[Woodruff]

#1 No. While requiring police to verify legal status of anyone they come into contact with for other reasons (i.e. making it a secondary offense) is a part of the law, the law ALSO makes "supicion of legality" a PRIMARY offense, that, in itself, is enough to warrent these checks. Specifically listed as warranting of suspicion are "having an accent", race, etc.

#1: The law explicitly states you can't suspect someone simply because of their race, so your argument has no credibility.

Night Strike, you're wrong on this one. I strongly urge you to go read the actual law. As PLAYER stated, with this law it is a primary offense (as in you can be stopped for it) to LOOK SUSPICIOUS.

[thegreekdog]

#1 No. While requiring police to verify legal status of anyone they come into contact with for other reasons (i.e. making it a secondary offense) is a part of the law, the law ALSO makes "supicion of legality" a PRIMARY offense, that, in itself, is enough to warrent these checks. Specifically listed as warranting of suspicion are "having an accent", race, etc.

#1: The law explicitly states you can't suspect someone simply because of their race, so your argument has no credibility.

Night Strike, you're wrong on this one. I strongly urge you to go read the actual law. As PLAYER stated, with this law it is a primary offense (as in you can be stopped for it) to LOOK SUSPICIOUS.

How is that different from any other criminal law?

[GabonX]

#1 No. While requiring police to verify legal status of anyone they come into contact with for other reasons (i.e. making it a secondary offense) is a part of the law, the law ALSO makes "supicion of legality" a PRIMARY offense, that, in itself, is enough to warrent these checks. Specifically listed as warranting of suspicion are "having an accent", race, etc.

#1: The law explicitly states you can't suspect someone simply because of their race, so your argument has no credibility.

Night Strike, you're wrong on this one. I strongly urge you to go read the actual law. As PLAYER stated, with this law it is a primary offense (as in you can be stopped for it) to LOOK SUSPICIOUS.

God forbid police stop people that look suspicious..


The bottom line is that, yes this law could be abused, and yes, something DOES have to be done about the problem in Arizona...

People who have nothing to do with the drug war are getting caught up and killed because of it, and yes there is a connection between this violence and illegal immigration/the porous border with Mexico.


If the Federal Government would have made some semblance of an effort to enforce the laws that are in place, action by the border states might not be necessary. The status quo however, is that people, Americans, are dying.

This demands action.

[PLAYER57832]

#1 No. While requiring police to verify legal status of anyone they come into contact with for other reasons (i.e. making it a secondary offense) is a part of the law, the law ALSO makes "supicion of legality" a PRIMARY offense, that, in itself, is enough to warrent these checks. Specifically listed as warranting of suspicion are "having an accent", race, etc.

#1: The law explicitly states you can't suspect someone simply because of their race, so your argument has no credibility.

Night Strike, you're wrong on this one. I strongly urge you to go read the actual law. As PLAYER stated, with this law it is a primary offense (as in you can be stopped for it) to LOOK SUSPICIOUS.

How is that different from any other criminal law?

The difference is that other criminal laws require that people engage in some action or activity that is suspicious. In this case, there is truly no such requirement. Simply being in the state is enough reason to allow a police officer to determine you are "suspicious".

Further, this law has the effect of requiring people to carry proof of innocence at all times, instead of placing the burden of proof, to prove that the person is here illegally, on the police. If they fail to carry proof of legality, they can be hauled into jail.

Worse, according to the way many are interpreting this law, in particular the sherrif of Mariposa (you know, "tent city"), once they are "determined" to be illegal, they can be held without bail or other recourse, because, of course citizens have no rights.

Police, not trained in immigration details (though supposedly they will get some training in this) are tasked with not just enforcing extremely complicated laws, but have the perfect right to pass judgement. There is no requirement, for example, that these people be immediately remanded to federal jurisdiction. (again, at least according to such wonderful individuals as the Sherrif of Mariposa county).

[thegreekdog]

#1 No. While requiring police to verify legal status of anyone they come into contact with for other reasons (i.e. making it a secondary offense) is a part of the law, the law ALSO makes "supicion of legality" a PRIMARY offense, that, in itself, is enough to warrent these checks. Specifically listed as warranting of suspicion are "having an accent", race, etc.

#1: The law explicitly states you can't suspect someone simply because of their race, so your argument has no credibility.

Night Strike, you're wrong on this one. I strongly urge you to go read the actual law. As PLAYER stated, with this law it is a primary offense (as in you can be stopped for it) to LOOK SUSPICIOUS.

How is that different from any other criminal law?

The difference is that other criminal laws require that people engage in some action or activity that is suspicious. In this case, there is truly no such requirement. Simply being in the state is enough reason to allow a police officer to determine you are "suspicious".

Is it? Is it really? Or are they stopping people who actually look suspicious?

I have a black friend who was stopped for "looking suspicious" in upstate Pennsylvania (not many large black men in that part of the country). He was not given a ticket, but was asked to step out of the vehicle. When he informed the officers that he was an English and writing teacher at a high school, they laughed at him. Guess what happened to the police officers? Nothing. My point? It happens all the time in every other state to people who are actually citizens and not actually breaking the law. How do you think ICE determines who is illegal? I hate this Arizona law (just like the federal laws), but let's not kid ourselves. Apparently Arizona has a major problem, the US government is not helping at all, so Arizona is taking it into their own hands.

[PLAYER57832]

Is it? Is it really? Or are they stopping people who actually look suspicious?

I have a black friend who was stopped for "looking suspicious" in upstate Pennsylvania (not many large black men in that part of the country). He was not given a ticket, but was asked to step out of the vehicle. When he informed the officers that he was an English and writing teacher at a high school, they laughed at him. Guess what happened to the police officers? Nothing. My point? It happens all the time in every other state to people who are actually citizens and not actually breaking the law.

Yes, but was your friend hauled off to jail and denied an attorney as a result? I highly doubt it. That is a pretty big difference!
Furthermore, for those officers to have stopped that man, under those circumstances, might be slightly warranted. For them to laugh at him, though, was absolutely inappropriate. However, again, it does not sound like he even got a ticket, never mind being thrown in jail. In Arizona, he could be, that quick, on even flimsier "evidence" (the presence of hispanics is hardly a rare occurance in Arizona).

How do you think ICE determines who is illegal?

Multiple factors, primarily paperwork to which they have ready access, but to which police officers generally do not. Also, they usually have to have some kind of other suspicion before they get involved -- someone breaking a law, an employer who is hiring large numbers of illegal employees, traffickers, etc.

I hate this Arizona law (just like the federal laws), but let's not kid ourselves. Apparently Arizona has a major problem, the US government is not helping at all, so Arizona is taking it into their own hands.

Arizona has no more of a problem than many places, or at least their problems are no more due to the presence of illegal aliens than anywhere else. Illegal aliens make a convenient scapegoat.

Further, this law attacks only superficial symptoms, not the real problem. I suggest attacking the real root problems. Far more effective in the long run.

[fumandomuerte]

So, if I'm a tourist in AZ a police officer can ask me for my documentation just because I look "brownie"?
Gotta love you're neighbors

[thegreekdog]

So when my younger brother (a swarthy, bearded young man, much like myself) gets stopped at the airport and held without discussion and misses his flight, is that okay?

[army of nobunaga]

bottom line, we send them back to where they are a legal resident. end of story. you want to get into arguments about how exactly we do it, and Obama wants to fan the flames of hate and race, this is all getting real sickening. We will protect our borders, and we will apologize to nobody for doing so

When you arizonians have dirty unwashed windshields and your chicken costs 5 bucks a lb... Dont get mad.

Im just saying.


I understand where you are coming from. But until America gets its priorities in order like pulling out of some countrys and dropping troops in a literal war zone to help these ppl who are getting the hell out and into america- until that time I would just take the silver lining... cheap chicken and cheap car washes. And you can get a nanny and a maid really cheap if they are illegal. Im actually being serious here.

You think this is not a war zone that is right next to your home? This here is an everyday occurrence --> http://www.themonitor.com/articles/reyn ... evice.html I have heard more nato rounds and grenades in my 6 months here than I did in any 1 year in "war" zones... and Im not exaggerating.

Whats the point you ask scotty? The point is, protect your border all you want... These people are running towards a dream and away from a nightmare. When Europeans came to america... did indians or weather or seas stop their dreams? Um no. And nothing will stop a people ,not even your walls and policemen and needing a drivers license, from coming across for a dream.


I just believe until america gets real about a problem, these half ass measures will not work. We send humanitarian aid all over the world. We send troops to far places for reasons we are not sure about to the point it divides a nation. Well everyday I see starving kids selling gum 4 kilometers from you america. Everyday I hear nato rounds. Everyday I see despair in fathers faces.

And you think needing a license will stop their dream?




What are the unalienable rights of EVERY human, not just americans? Well its that last one of the three that will spit in the face of your legislation needing drivers licenses.

good luck

[72o]

I think we should just start public executions of illegal immigrants. That shit would stop real quick.

Aside from all the discussion about how the arrest process will work with this new bill, what about the penalties? Today all that happens is a deportation, and a forbiddance to enter the U.S. for a year or two, or for a multiple offender, permanently.

If they come here once illegally, what makes anyone think that telling them "you're not allowed to do this again" is going to stop them from doing it again?

[fumandomuerte]

I think we should just start public executions of illegal immigrants.

First world twisted neo-nazi mind

[Timminz]

Oh, you haven't heard? Callous disregard for human life, is "in" this season.

[72o]

Oh, you haven't heard? Callous disregard for human life, is "in" this season.

It's never been "out". Get with it.

[PLAYER57832]

So when my younger brother (a swarthy, bearded young man, much like myself) gets stopped at the airport and held without discussion and misses his flight, is that okay?

Definitely depends upon the circumstances. For example, is his name on the "no fly list?" Is he obnoxious to airport personnel?

If there are no other reasons to consider him, then no. However, a big distinction here. Whereas you have been required to carrry ID for most flights for some time, Arizona is the only state to effectively require every citizen (at least those who might be construed to "look like potential illegal aliens") to carry citizenship-verifying ID.

[Night Strike]

The difference is that other criminal laws require that people engage in some action or activity that is suspicious. In this case, there is truly no such requirement. Simply being in the state is enough reason to allow a police officer to determine you are "suspicious".

Further, this law has the effect of requiring people to carry proof of innocence at all times, instead of placing the burden of proof, to prove that the person is here illegally, on the police. If they fail to carry proof of legality, they can be hauled into jail.

Thank you for proving your disregard for our rule of law and keeping out illegal immigrants. It's impossible to prove a person is here illegally if you can't check their ID, but you claim it's racial profiling to ask people for their ID, therefore the law can never be upheld in your view. People can come and go as they please, use our public services as they wish, vote in our elections without proof of citizenship, and God-forbid bring whatever weapons and bombs they want into the country. The idea that non-citizens have a right to be here without the government's knowledge is preposterous and ultimately dangerous!

[PLAYER57832]

The difference is that other criminal laws require that people engage in some action or activity that is suspicious. In this case, there is truly no such requirement. Simply being in the state is enough reason to allow a police officer to determine you are "suspicious".

Further, this law has the effect of requiring people to carry proof of innocence at all times, instead of placing the burden of proof, to prove that the person is here illegally, on the police. If they fail to carry proof of legality, they can be hauled into jail.

Thank you for proving your disregard for our rule of law and keeping out illegal immigrants. It's impossible to prove a person is here illegally if you can't check their ID, but you claim it's racial profiling to ask people for their ID, therefore the law can never be upheld in your view.

Oh please.

First, checking a driver's license is not the best way to verify someone's citizenship. In most states, you still don't have to prove citizenship to get one.

Second, the evidence police can use to make the "determination" that someone "might be illegal" (and not the "might" bit) is very flimsy. Once encarcerated, unless you are fortunate enough to have relatives who can provide your passport or such, you pretty much have to wait to see the feds to get any chance of proving you are a citizen. Ironically enough, many who have been in trouble with the law will actually have the EASIEST time verifying this, because they will already have had citizenship investigated.

People can come and go as they please, use our public services as they wish, vote in our elections without proof of citizenship, and God-forbid bring whatever weapons and bombs they want into the country.

This is supposed to be about jobs. In reality, it is more about taxes and the illegal workers are convenient scape goats for the truly guilty, those who hire illegally to pay low wages and avoid paying their share of taxes, etc.

It was never intended to deal with bombs and so forth. As for drugs and weapons -- the weapons are coming from the US into Mexico, not the reverse and the whole border situation has gotten far MORE violent with each crackdown.

The idea that non-citizens have a right to be here without the government's knowledge is preposterous and ultimately dangerous!

[/quote]
Non-citizens are required to carry ID now. Citizens, however are not. This law is harming citizens. THAT is the point.

[GabonX]

Well, given that the law isn't in pace yet, no it isn't harming citizens..

How exactly does carrying an ID cause harm to one's self anyway?