No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

[luckytxn 2,265]

The law pretty much told law enforcement that they are allowed to do their jobs and that is investigate to see if a crime has been committed. Many cities tell their LE's to not investigate certain crimes (Being here illegally) Arizona is a border state with a huge invasion problem and needed their LE to start enforcing laws.

If everyone wants to poo poo a law because it may possibly cause some legals to be targeted then why should we make any laws ever? Any laws can and has snared a few innocents. With logic like that then we should never make any law whatsoever as it may harm a few that it wasn't meant to.

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

I have to concur, in that Steve is arguing that only he has a good grasp on the law, while everyone else is floundering around. If it requires the services of a judge to form an opinion as to its legality, then the arguments are complex and no one side has a monopoly on its interpretation, however much I might wish that to be the case as I really, really dislike the idea of being required to carry documentation to avoid indefinite incarceration.

Thanks for misrepresenting my argument. You don't have to be a lawyer or constitutional scholar to have a basic understanding of law. However, like other issues, the complexities of constitutional law that are being argued by groups such as the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice as well as prominent constitutional scholars are being dismissed by people who have neither the background nor the expertise to fully comprehend their legal arguments. I have no doubt that some people have the capacity to have a more adequate understanding of constitutional law, but I doubt most of us do, including myself.

As for expertise in general, I have a lot of respect for those who spend years of education, training and research in the field they chose to dedicate their lives to. While I don't think that means that one must blindly follow expert opinion, we should however, be holding those opinions on a much higher ground than someone who isn't an expert.

Edited July 25, 2010 by El Buscador

[Peikko 1,575]

Misrepresented? So you are not saying that in your opinion the interpretation that you favour is the interpretation that will ultimately prevail? It is quite clear to me that both sides of the argument have well read legal experts on their sides and both have merit legally. If that were not so, then the case would not be getting serious line by line consideration. I do not know what conclusion will ultimately be arrived at although I obviously favour the interpretation that allows citizens and non citizens to carry on their business without being compelled to carry proof of status to avoid incarceration- open ended or not.

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

...there are just as many legal experts that opine that SB1070 is legit.

Totally false. There are pundits out there arguing what the believe are the merits of the law, but there a very few, if any true constitutional scholars who have given the opinion that SB1070 passes constitutional muster. The AACJ's (Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice) amicus is the most straightforward explanation as to why SB1070 is unconstitutional, in that it violates the 4th Amendment. The DOJ's legal challenge targets another issue with the law, preemption (Supremacy Clause), but the DOJ states that there are several constitutional issues with the law.

from the DOJ:

"Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

[evli1966 88]

Misrepresented? So you are not saying that in your opinion the interpretation that you favour is the interpretation that will ultimately prevail? It is quite clear to me that both sides of the argument have well read legal experts on their sides and both have merit legally. If that were not so, then the case would not be getting serious line by line consideration. I do not know what conclusion will ultimately be arrived at although I obviously favour the interpretation that allows citizens and non citizens to carry on their business without being compelled to carry proof of status to avoid incarceration- open ended or not.

By non citizens did you mean Illegal Immigrants?

If the law stated a legal resident must carry their documents then how are they to prove their status is legal?

I understand many documents can be forged and ID isn't 100% but at least it is working towards the correct goal and is a deterent to Illegal Immigrats coming too or remainin in the USA..

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Misrepresented? So you are not saying that in your opinion the interpretation that you favour is the interpretation that will ultimately prevail? It is quite clear to me that both sides of the argument have well read legal experts on their sides and both have merit legally. If that were not so, then the case would not be getting serious line by line consideration. I do not know what conclusion will ultimately be arrived at although I obviously favour the interpretation that allows citizens and non citizens to carry on their business without being compelled to carry proof of status to avoid incarceration- open ended or not.

Forty-two states require that everyone carry ID when in public. Federal law requires non-citizens to carry status papers. Both citizens and non-citizens can be detained for not producing ID when it is required. SB 1070 didn't change that, nor would its defeat make it safe to go without ID.

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

It is quite clear to me that both sides of the argument have well read legal experts on their sides and both have merit legally. If that were not so, then the case would not be getting serious line by line consideration.

Really? I'd like to know what arguments in support of SB1070 from legal experts that you've read (and journalists don't fall into that category).

Edited July 25, 2010 by El Buscador

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Really? I'd like to know what arguments in support of SB1070 from legal experts that you've read (and journalists don't fall into that category).

Really, Stevie. Is the "my experts beat your experts" debate worth it to you? I doubt that you've read any scholars who believe SB 1070 will prevail, but, for starters, how about the lawyers who wrote the law and believe it will hold up in court? They're no legal slouches.

Oh, yea, I almost forgot. You labeled them racists, so their opinions aren't valid and we're racists if we believe them.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

Forty-two states require that everyone carry ID when in public. Federal law requires non-citizens to carry status papers. Both citizens and non-citizens can be detained for not producing ID when it is required. SB 1070 didn't change that, nor would its defeat make it safe to go without ID.

I disagree that not carrying ID is currently an unsafe thing to do, no matter the legal requirement to do so. As things stand the police have no interest in legal status unless during the course of an investigation it becomes evident that legal status is germane to the case. The new law would put legal status first and foremost in any investigation. That would change the dynamic completely.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Mexico filed suit against Arizona, calling it racial profiling and inhumane toward Mexican "migrants", but its own credibility on the immigration issue leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to trespassers within its own borders.

Activists blast Mexico's immigration law

Updated 5/25/2010 7:53 PM

TULTITLN, Mexico — Arizona's new law forcing local police to take a greater role in enforcing immigration law has caused a lot of criticism from Mexico, the largest single source of illegal immigrants in the United States.

But in Mexico, illegal immigrants receive terrible treatment from corrupt Mexican authorities, say people involved in the system.

And Mexico has a law that is no different from Arizona's that empowers local police to check the immigration documents of people suspected of not being in the country legally.

"There (in the United States), they'll deport you," Hector Vázquez, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, said as he rested in a makeshift camp with other migrants under a highway bridge in Tultitlán. "In Mexico they'll probably let you go, but they'll beat you up and steal everything you've got first."

Mexican authorities have harshly criticized Arizona's SB1070, a law that requires local police to check the status of persons suspected of being illegal immigrants. The law provides that a check be done in connection with another law enforcement event, such as a traffic stop, and also permits Arizona citizens to file lawsuits against local authorities for not fully enforcing immigration laws.

Mexico's Foreign Ministry said the law "violates inalienable human rights" and Democrats in Congress applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderón's criticisms of the law in a speech he gave on Capitol Hill last week.

Yet Mexico's Arizona-style law requires local police to check IDs. And Mexican police freely engage in racial profiling and routinely harass Central American migrants, say immigration activists.

"The Mexican government should probably clean up its own house before looking at someone else's," said Melissa Vertíz, spokeswoman for the Fray Matías de Córdova Human Rights Center in Tapachula, Mexico.

In one six-month period from September 2008 through February 2009, at least 9,758 migrants were kidnapped and held for ransom in Mexico — 91 of them with the direct participation of Mexican police, a report by the National Human Rights Commission said. Other migrants are routinely stopped and shaken down for bribes, it said.

A separate survey conducted during one month in 2008 at 10 migrant shelters showed Mexican authorities were behind migrant attacks in 35 of 240 cases, or 15%.

Most migrants in Mexico are Central Americans who are simply passing through on their way to the United States, human rights groups say. Others are Guatemalans who live and work along Mexico's southern border, mainly as farm workers, as maids, or in bars and restaurants.

The Central American migrants headed to the United States travel mainly on freight trains, stopping to rest and beg for food at rail crossings like the one in Tultitlán, an industrial suburb of Mexico City.

On a recent afternoon, Victor Manuel Beltrán Rodríguez of Managua, Nicaragua, trudged between the cars at a stop light, his hand outstretched.

"Can you give me a peso? I'm from Nicaragua," he said. Every 10 cars or so, a motorist would roll down the window and hand him a few coins. In a half-hour he had collected 10 pesos, about 80 U.S. cents, enough for a taco.

Beltrán Rodríguez had arrived in Mexico with 950 pesos, about $76, enough to last him to the U.S. border. But near Tierra Blanca, Veracruz, he says municipal police had detained him, driven him to a deserted road and taken his money. He had been surviving since then by begging.

Abuses by Mexican authorities have persisted even as Mexico has relaxed its rules against illegal immigrants in recent years, according to the National Human Rights Commission.

In 2008, Mexico softened the punishment for illegal immigrants, from a maximum 10 years in prison to a maximum fine of $461. Most detainees are taken to detention centers and put on buses for home.

Mexican law calls for six to 12 years of prison and up to $46,000 in fines for anyone who shelters or transports illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the law applies only to people who do it for money.

For years, the Mexican government has allowed charity groups to openly operate migrant shelters, where travelers can rest for a few days on their journey north. The government also has a special unit of immigration agents, known as Grupo Beta, who patrol the countryside in orange pickups, helping immigrants who are in trouble.

At the same time, Article 67 of Mexico's immigration law requires that all authorities "whether federal, local or municipal" demand to see visas if approached by a foreigner and to hand over migrants to immigration authorities.

"In effect, this means that migrants who suffer crimes, including kidnapping, prefer not to report them to avoid … being detained by immigration authorities and returned to their country," the National Human Rights Commission said in a report last year.

As a result, the clause has strengthened gangs who abuse migrants, rights activists say.

"That Article 67 is an obstacle that urgently has to be removed," said Alberto Herrera, executive director of Amnesty International Mexico. "It has worsened this vicious cycle of abuse and impunity, and the same thing could happen (in Arizona)."

A bill passed by the Mexican Senate on Oct. 6 would eliminate the ID requirement in Article 67 and replace it with language saying "No attention in matters of human rights or the provision of justice shall be denied or restricted on any level (of government) to foreigners who require it, regardless of their migration status."

The Mexican House of Representatives approved a similar measure on March 16, but added a clause requiring the government to set aside funds to take care of foreigners during times of disaster. The revised bill has been stuck in the Senate's Population and Development Committee since then.

To discourage migrants from speaking out about abuse, Mexican authorities often tell detainees they will have to stay longer in detention centers if they file a complaint, Vertíz said.

A March 2007 order allows Mexican immigration agents to give "humanitarian visas" to migrants who have suffered crimes in Mexico. But the amnesty is not automatic, and most migrants don't know to ask for it, the commission said.

Hawley is Latin America correspondent for USA TODAY and The Arizona Republic

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I disagree that not carrying ID is currently an unsafe thing to do, no matter the legal requirement to do so. As things stand the police have no interest in legal status unless during the course of an investigation it becomes evident that legal status is germane to the case. The new law would put legal status first and foremost in any investigation. That would change the dynamic completely.

There are jurisdictions across the country that are already doing what Arizona wants to do. No dynamic is changing other than Arizona, due to its immediate proximity to the border and the problems that causes, made a big deal about checking immigration status in order to force the feds into taking action.

[Peikko 1,575]

There are jurisdictions across the country that are already doing what Arizona wants to do. No dynamic is changing other than Arizona, due to its immediate proximity to the border and the problems that causes, made a big deal about checking immigration status in order to force the feds into taking action.

In other words you agree with me. The difference between us is that you believe this change of dynamic is worth the cost while I think it is not both financially and socially.

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

FWIW - an article from Thursday's Arizona Republic that summarizes what transpired in the court so far:

True to her reputation, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton made attorneys sweat on both sides of the aisle in this morning's hearing on Senate Bill 1070, the state's new immigration law.

The topic was a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil-rights groups and individuals. Three requests from defendants seek to have the suit thrown out; one from the plaintiffs asks the judge for a preliminary injunction, blocking the law from taking effect.

Omar Jadwat, an attorney representing the ACLU, had just begun to say why he believed SB 1070 was unconstitutional and should be enjoined, when Bolton cut him off.

"I'm sorry to interrupt you after your second sentence," she said.

But she wanted to make it clear that SB 1070 was not a statute in itself, but rather an "enactment" by the Legislature that merged new laws with old laws and amended laws, all dealing with immigration.

"Shouldn't we be talking about it section by section and provision by provision?" she asked. "Because I'm not going to enjoin SB 1070."

Then she steered the attorneys toward the new law's sticking points: the fuzzy language of when police may question suspects about immigration status, the ability to hold people indefinitely as their immigration status is verified, and whether or not the new laws about hiring or transporting illegal immigrants or carrying registration cards pre-empt federal law.

She asked Jadwat why the state could not try to impose a standard enforcement of federal immigration and why citizens should not be allowed to sue if they feel the laws are not being enforced.

"Who am I to stop the state of Arizona?" she asked, if the state wanted to outlaw "sanctuary cities."

But she also held the state's lawyer, John Bouma, to the fire when he repeatedly was unable to answer questions about how the state law intermeshes with federal immigration law.

Twice she told Bouma that she was "mystified" by the law's wording and focused on a provision that allows law-enforcement officers to arrest people suspected of committing offenses that could have them removed from the country.

"How can a police officer make a determination that a person has committed a removable offense when that decision can only be made by a federal judge?" she asked.

And during a discussion of the strain that the law would put on federal immigration authorities, she evoked a wave of laughter after Bouma said that the law did not intend to "melt down ICE," the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

She paused a beat and asked, "Did you really just say 'melt down ICE'?"

Bolton did not rule from the bench after this morning's hearing.

In the afternoon hearing, Bolton was just as tough on the Department of Justice attorney, Edwin Kneedler, as he presented arguments as to whether the state law pre-empts federal law.

And when Bouma was about to begin his final argument, she said, "If you don't have anything new to say, I remember what you said this morning and last week."

At the end of the hearings, she took both matters under advisement with no suggestion as to when she would rule.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/11/20100711arizona-immigration-law-justic-department.html#ixzz0uhzIxaAf

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes Steve, those of us who read non-biased articles are aware that the judge scrutinized BOTH sides of the argument. (I could copy and bold the parts that counter the ones that renfoce your opinion, but I can't be bothered). The OP's post was ridiculous because he made it seem that one side was ahead, but you sound equally ridiculous trying to persuade that the other side is ahead, when in reality, the judge is not giving anything away as to what way she will rule.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In other words you agree with me. The difference between us is that you believe this change of dynamic is worth the cost while I think it is not both financially and socially.

Not really. This is a question of state's rights vs. federal absolutism. The progressive Obama administration is all about expanding federal government authority over states and individuals. If they are successful in asserting absolute authority in an area where they have made it clear they have no interest in carrying out their Constitutional duty to protect the borders of this country from invaders, defend our sovereignty and the value of our citizenship from usurpers, then the validity of this government comes into question. Their primary duty under the Constitution is to do what they say they hesitate to do, and their encouragement of a foreign nation to disparage Arizona, interfere with its law making, and bolster its lawbreakers is a treasonous act. Challenging their One World agenda is well worth the financial and social costs.