9 states back AZ in obama administration action against AZ

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So go driving around without your D/L in protest!

That would be a civil offense VJ legal eagle!

[Pooky 3,343]

Any red-blooded American who has read SB1070 should be concerned about the implications of a law that gives law enforcement the authority to detain someone without bail merely on suspicion of their legal status. Constitutional matters should never be a popularity contest and history has shown that such landmark decisions by the Supreme Court were often at odds with popular sentiment. But please, continue being a cheerleader for SB1070 because you believe states have legal precedent to circumvent our beloved Constitution whenever they feel the Fed Gov't. isn't doing its job.

So don't answer the question I asked. I have never argued that the Supreme Court should rule on the side of Arizona merely on the basis of public opinion. I want definition on legal terms and legal terms alone. What I have argued for consistently is for the Federal government to enforce Federal immigration laws currently on the statute books, effectively and consistently, because that is the wish of a sizeable majority of the American people, and this administration, like all others before it, was elected to represent the people, not ignore them.

Answer this one instead - does current Federal law not give Federal law enforcement the power to arrest and detain someone merely on suspicion of their legal status?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Any red-blooded American who has read SB1070 should be concerned about the implications of a law that gives law enforcement the authority to detain someone without bail merely on suspicion of their legal status. Constitutional matters should never be a popularity contest and history has shown that such landmark decisions by the Supreme Court were often at odds with popular sentiment. But please, continue being a cheerleader for SB1070 because you believe states have legal precedent to circumvent our beloved Constitution whenever they feel the Fed Gov't. isn't doing its job.

Ummm, it's not that simple. But you can feel free to try again as usual.

[justashooter 430]

Ummm, it's not that simple. But you can feel free to try again as usual.

it is that simple. RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) is cause for arrest. if the arrest is unlawful, a judge will sort it out. that's the way it is, and has been as long as there has been law enforcement in this country. doesn't matter whether it's about stealing a candy bar, or EWI. conviction comes after the arrest, if the judge decides the law supports a conviction.

illegal presence is bad enough. driving without a liscence, and any other crime an illegal commits while in the US is worse, and would not have happened, had they not been here.

more people are killed in traffic accidents caused by illegal aliens every year than die in our ongoing war actions. tell it to the families of the dead. tell it to the 14 year old girls illegal hondurans gang rape.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

it is that simple. RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) is cause for arrest. if the arrest is unlawful, a judge will sort it out. that's the way it is, and has been as long as there has been law enforcement in this country. doesn't matter whether it's about stealing a candy bar, or EWI. conviction comes after the arrest, if the judge decides the law supports a conviction.

illegal presence is bad enough. driving without a liscence, and any other crime an illegal commits while in the US is worse, and would not have happened, had they not been here.

more people are killed in traffic accidents caused by illegal aliens every year than die in our ongoing war actions. tell it to the families of the dead. tell it to the 14 year old girls illegal hondurans gang rape.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You can't post bail for being detained on any crime. You have to be arrested first. You can all ready be detained if police have reasonable suspicion. You get pulled over for a traffic ticket you are being detained as you wait to see if the office will give you a ticket. It is interesting that you keep bringing up the Constitution in your arguments. The Constitution does not say you can't be detained to check immigration status. In fact on the lawbooks is this quote:

Investigative detention is "when a police officer is permitted to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion, that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The ability to detain an individual under these circumstances is typically referred to as investigative detention." (Investigative Detention, George Coppolo)

Being here in the U.S. without proper documentation is not a Federal crime, even though SB1070 cleverly tries to circumvent Federal Law by making it a crime. In your quote, it states specifically that a legal alien who fails to provide documentation can be charged with a misdemeanor, which by any law book is NOT a crime, and is not punishable by arrest.

But lets be clear here what the authors of SB1070 mean by detention without bail - they mean that this law gives authority to local law enforcement to take someone they suspect is here illegally and hold them in a local jail cell until immigration either clears their name or takes the suspect into immigration's authority for possible deportation proceedings. This is an infringement on our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures, as well as arrest without warrant.

[Atencio 43]

Investigative detention is "when a police officer is permitted to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion, that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The ability to detain an individual under these circumstances is typically referred to as investigative detention." (Investigative Detention, George Coppolo)

I am not sure where you are going with this.

Being here in the U.S. without proper documentation is not a Federal crime, even though SB1070 cleverly tries to circumvent Federal Law by making it a crime. In your quote, it states specifically that a legal alien who fails to provide documentation can be charged with a misdemeanor, which by any law book is NOT a crime, and is not punishable by arrest.

These are not laws?

The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States.

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304: Forms for registration and fingerprinting

You most certainly can be placed in jail for a misdemeanor. A DUI is a misdemeanor.

Instead of just saying my quote is wrong please elaborate further.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The statutory scheme created by SB 1070 would subject individuals to de facto arrests absent adequate constitutional protections. SB 1070 proposes to substitute reasonable suspicion for the well-established requirement that an arrest must be justified by probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. Even in cases where an investigative stop by police is justified by reasonable suspicion, it is possible for police to exceed the permissible scope of the stop and convert an investigative detention into a de facto arrest, and SB 1070 seeks to do just that...

A person’s immigration status is not something that can be determined by state and local law enforcement officers, or even by federal immigration officers, in the context of a brief investigatory detention. Instead, persons seized will be subject to a prolonged detention, for which the Fourth Amendment demands a finding of probable cause. SB 1070, however, permits this prolonged detention without the requisite finding of probable cause that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

- Amicus Curiae from ARIZONA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

[Atencio 43]

But lets be clear here what the authors of SB1070 mean by detention without bail - they mean that this law gives authority to local law enforcement to take someone they suspect is here illegally and hold them in a local jail cell until immigration either clears their name or takes the suspect into immigration's authority for possible deportation proceedings. This is an infringement on our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures, as well as arrest without warrant.

Counterpoint to your arguments regarding SB1070:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7015240.html

[slim 1,514]

What I don't understand is why it's news every time another state backs Arizona. This isn't the FED vs. all the states that back AZ, this is the FED vs. AZ. It doesn't matter how many states back them or don't back them. (Or have similar laws already in place that nobody cares about.)

[Atencio 43]

I think Slim it causes one of two things:

1. Increase of state support puts more pressure on Obama to do something

2. Get enough state support and you could change the constitution (doubtful)

[slim 1,514]

I think Slim it causes one of two things:

1. Increase of state support puts more pressure on Obama to do something

2. Get enough state support and you could change the constitution (doubtful)

1. How? There's no "extra" pressure added by states supporting AZ. This is between the FED and AZ. If states started passing similar legislation then they'd have cause for concern. Merely giving a thumbs up does nothing.

2. How? This is a grey area at best. The only way to change it would be to outright amend it with immigration reform and that will never happen.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Counterpoint to your arguments regarding SB1070:

http://www.chron.com...ok/7015240.html

from the link you posted:

It is only after a valid arrest, stop or detention has been established — only at that point — that a police officer can even consider investigating immigration status, under the Arizona law. And at that point, the officer still can't investigate, unless there are “reasonable” grounds to suspect illegal entry. And even then, he can only make a “reasonable effort ... to determine the person's immigration status.” More importantly, the officer can't begin to make an arrest, unless the inquiry produces a solid basis, or in other words, probable cause for arrest.

I understand that part of SB1070. That doesn't invalidate the argument I've made which I backed up with a similar argument made by those Arizona Attorneys regarding the 4th Amendment. Keep in mind, arrest and legal detainment are not one in the same. When you are arrested, you are provided certain rights - right to an attorney, right to remain silent, etc. SB1070 states (without specifically quoting) that local law enforcement are granted the authority to detain someone they suspect is here illegally without bail. Now granted, they must at least stop that person first, but lets be honest here, an officer can stop just about anyone on the road (broken tail light method). And so far, no one has made a compelling argument as to what constitutes as reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally, at least not without violating our civil rights.

[Atencio 43]

1. How? There's no "extra" pressure added by states supporting AZ. This is between the FED and AZ. If states started passing similar legislation then they'd have cause for concern. Merely giving a thumbs up does nothing.

Sure it does. Obama may be the President but he is also a politician and will bow to pressure to maintain his support. You think he is taking the present course of action because of his belief that it is the right thing to do? Wake up.

2. How? This is a grey area at best. The only way to change it would be to outright amend it with immigration reform and that will never happen.

I did place the emphasis that this is doubtful. But yes it would require an amendment change.

[justashooter 430]

I did place the emphasis that this is doubtful. But yes it would require an amendment change.

the only part of the question even remotely related to constitutional amendment is the status of anchor babies. the rest is up to congress, and to the states.

the 14th amendment is under "due process", so the congress has the right to regulate the right given in it by passage of ordinary statute. defining the right is part of due process. there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant when the 14th was written. therefore, there was no such thing as an anchor baby born to illegal immigrants. this situation is a development that the right did not address, so can be regulated by statute.

Kim Wok was heard before the classification of illegal immigrant was created, so it is not covered under Kim Wok, who was US born, anyway.