Breaking: Judge grants injunction on most vehemently opposed parts of AZ law!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

First of all, you didn't stipulate that. Second, could you link to something that states as such? I have only found one of the unions that does support it from a cursory google search. I know that a vast majority of the officers where I work would not support a bill in california if it contained the verbiage requiring inquiries regarding status.

I don't google serious research. I pick up the phone and talk to people in the know. So, no, I don''t have a link, sorry.

[Heracles 417]

Regarding immigrants required to carry their paperwork, I disagree with this because once someone takes U.S. citizenship, they whould be held to the same standard, regardless of where they came from or what color their skin is. In the judges ruling, she said that there was a likelihood of legal immigrants being detained, simply because of their skin color or their accent. I will make the concession that if they changed the wording to mandate that all people residing in Arizona are required to carry a state issued ID card of sorts, then I'd be OK with that.

That's my point though. I've personally now filed three visas, with those naturalized having filed four. Therefore, our prints, photo and details are in various federal databases. My details and photo are also in the state's DMV databse. Even without any ID on me, an officer with the right access could easily verify my status. Case closed end of story.

The use [reliance] of paperwork is now null and void. Authorities can access more than enough tools to be able to verify the majority of people, without even hassling them.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Since you seem to know more about law than most folks and assuming they are correct about state vs fed, then surely state and local police have no right to charge anyone with breaking any federal law. Surely then federal police should man the streets to ensure federal laws are not broken.

Local cops enforce federal laws every day. That's what so odd about this whole dust up. Is it going to end up with the courts telling the states not to enforce federal laws? Part of the argument that the DOJ made against SB 1070 is that they don't have the resources or the political will to fulfill their mandate to protect our borders, so, if Arizona is allowed to help them, they would be overwhelmed even more. At the same time they plead to the court for relief on the basis of lameness, they want the courts to assert that the feds are the only ones who can do the job.

They haven't gotten that. There was no determination on the merits in this ruling that SB 1070 was unconstitutional or overreaching. Part of the law was stayed due to the fact that SCOTUS has accepted a case opposing an AZ law already in force requiring employers to avoid hiring illegals under threat of the loss of their business. This provision has been upheld in the lower courts, which surprised me and gives me hope that SB 1070, when it reaches the Ninth Circuit, may still have a chance to survive in such a liberal environment.

It will be a huge deal for the judiciary to rule that local crime is out of the jurisdiction of states if it is committed by a particular class of people who are beyond the law. That turns equal protection under the law on its head, and elevates that class to a kind of diplomatic status. There is a precedent for this, and that is the lesser constitutional protections and jurisdictional overlap on federal Indian reservations where the FBI's power has encroached to the point where there are dual legal tracks for Natives and non-Natives.

If this administration intends to treat illegals like something akin to diplomats, and to set up a two-tier legal system where the presumed prejudices of racist law enforcement officers can't touch them, and nonchalant federal bureaucrats won't, then the entire country becomes a reservation. Viva conquistadores!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Local cops enforce federal laws every day. That's what so odd about this whole dust up. Is it going to end up with the courts telling the states not to enforce federal laws? Part of the argument that the DOJ made against SB 1070 is that they don't have the resources or the political will to fulfill their mandate to protect our borders, so, if Arizona is allowed to help them, they would be overwhelmed even more. At the same time they plead to the court for relief on the basis of lameness, they want the courts to assert that the feds are the only ones who can do the job.

They haven't gotten that. There was no determination on the merits in this ruling that SB 1070 was unconstitutional or overreaching. Part of the law was stayed due to the fact that SCOTUS has accepted a case opposing an AZ law already in force requiring employers to avoid hiring illegals under threat of the loss of their business. This provision has been upheld in the lower courts, which surprised me and gives me hope that SB 1070, when it reaches the Ninth Circuit, may still have a chance to survive in such a liberal environment.

It will be a huge deal for the judiciary to rule that local crime is out of the jurisdiction of states if it is committed by a particular class of people who are beyond the law. That turns equal protection under the law on its head, and elevates that class to a kind of diplomatic status. There is a precedent for this, and that is the lesser constitutional protections and jurisdictional overlap on federal Indian reservations where the FBI's power has encroached to the point where there are dual legal tracks for Natives and non-Natives.

If this administration intends to treat illegals like something akin to diplomats, and to set up a two-tier legal system where the presumed prejudices of racist law enforcement officers can't touch them, and nonchalant federal bureaucrats won't, then the entire country becomes a reservation. Viva conquistadores!

For me, I have no problem with police asking the questions, but there needs to be some sort of safe guard because if the only tools the police have are whether a name is in a database mistakes are going to be made. How do we rectify that?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

For me, I have no problem with police asking the questions, but there needs to be some sort of safe guard because if the only tools the police have are whether a name is in a database mistakes are going to be made. How do we rectify that?

A valid concern, i.e. no fly lists.