AZ immigration law

Funkenpants wrote:

It goes beyond that. Say you're a local police chief who has decided to get tough on immigration. You round up 200 hundred illegals. What do you do with them? You're now responsible for housing and feeding them. Any children go into local child services, which probably has a tight budget. You can't just drive them to the border and dump them in Mexico, because you don't have jurisdiction at the border and you can't cross the border. And when you finally get the feds to take them (and they probably don't want them) and put them across the border, chances are the feds hand you some kind of bill for the cost of transportation and/or federal incarceration.

Look at it this way: There's a reason the federal government has its current enforcement policies on immigration. The amount of money and time it takes to deal with getting low-wage workers out of the country is just not worth the costs associated with it. We're already running a huge deficit. So if we increase the money we spend on enforcement, we're going to have to cut something else. What would we cut?

A racist, power hungry local police chief like Joe Arpaio?

It's not just the housing and feeding and everything else. It also opens the state up to massive lawsuits. All it takes is an actual legal immigrant or citizen who gets rounded up and you have a civil rights law suit that will cost the state millions to defend and millions in damages.

That's what's pulling down Sheriff Joe: his policy of rounding up anyone with brown skin has cost Maricopa County tens of millions in law suits. It might play well on the five o'clock news, but it's hell on finite budgets.

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Because state police power is handed out to municipalities and such, which can set their own agenda--the state police can't come in, I imagine, and start telling some county sheriff or city police chief how he or she should run his or her police force. So local police have discretion. This law seems (in part) to be aimed at taking away that discretion, at ending the practice of 'sanctuary' cities where local police have chosen to look the other way at illegal immigration.

It goes beyond that.

Oh, I agree it does, I was just answering the question of how the law works and what it intended to do, not whether it's a good idea. This part makes it interesting:

G. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G of this section and remit the civil penalty to the state treasurer for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724.

I. The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this section.

Either a law enforcement agency complies with the law, or faces opening itself up to lawsuits from every nutjob in the state. This should be REAL fun--Arizona has just opened every police force in the state to being sued by former members of The Minutemen, and I'm not talking about classic punk rock. Maybe we should call this the Legal Industry Stimulus Act of 2010.

I must admit, academically speaking, I'm most interested in seeing how this effects AZ's economy.

Dirt wrote:

I must admit, academically speaking, I'm most interested in seeing how this effects AZ's economy.

Considering the sh*t economy we have now? Not well.

OG_slinger wrote:

A racist, power hungry local police chief like Joe Arpaio?

It's not just the housing and feeding and everything else. It also opens the state up to massive lawsuits. All it takes is an actual legal immigrant or citizen who gets rounded up and you have a civil rights law suit that will cost the state millions to defend and millions in damages.

That's what's pulling down Sheriff Joe: his policy of rounding up anyone with brown skin has cost Maricopa County tens of millions in law suits. It might play well on the five o'clock news, but it's hell on finite budgets.

This is what frightens me.

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and prisons are notoriously abusive while failing to combat actual serious crime, but his "America's Toughest Sheriff" schtick makes for great TV and he's popular and politically powerful.

I seriously worry that other law enforcement agencies will use this law to pattern themselves after his populist "tough on crime" style of 'policing'.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Dirt wrote:

I must admit, academically speaking, I'm most interested in seeing how this effects AZ's economy.

Considering the sh*t economy we have now? Not well.

Given about a full third of Arizona is Mexican American, I think the cost of defending civil rights suits(if this law is not repealed) would be staggering. The Arizona Economy will be based on wrongful arrest suits. This is in an area already under a lot of fire for harassing Mexican Americans and Mexicans, which is detailed above.

Hey Ghastly, want to start a Bail Bonds business in AZ? I hear the market is about to pick up.

Edwin wrote:

Hey Ghastly, want to start a Bail Bonds business in AZ? I hear the market is about to pick up.

If I work for you do I get to wear Hawaiian shirts and smoke cigars? Because I would totally move to AZ and work for you if that is the case.

I wonder if they are going to go the extra step that this narrative seems to demand. By that, I mean that the state of Arizona will put all the property of suspected illegals into forfeiture and become the property of the state. This has all the smells of a land grab to me.

Edwin wrote:

Hey Ghastly, want to start a Bail Bonds business in AZ? I hear the market is about to pick up.

That's really freaking sad how true that is.

Paleocon wrote:

I wonder if they are going to go the extra step that this narrative seems to demand. By that, I mean that the state of Arizona will put all the property of suspected illegals into forfeiture and become the property of the state. This has all the smells of a land grab to me.

You're overreaching. This stupid piece of legislature is nothing more than a "F you, we'll do it ourselves" to the feds as well as a pandering to what the legislature and Governor believe is the will of the state (which is so not the case.) It is one of the best examples of {ableist slur} law making in decades.

I predict (and hope) this causes the state to kick the Governor and anyone who voted to pass this out of office. At the same time I hope Arpiao is linked in some fashion and his ass is tossed out as well.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

I predict (and hope) this causes the state to kick the Governor and anyone who voted to pass this out of office. At the same time I hope Arpiao is linked in some fashion and his ass is tossed out as well.

The NY Times ran a story today on the new law, and this guy quoted in the article sounds like the classic Arpiao supporter:

In a nearby neighborhood, Ron White, 52, said he felt a sense of relief that something was finally being done about “the illegals” — whom he blames for ills like congregating on the streets, breaking into homes in his neighborhood, draining tax dollars and taking jobs from Americans.

“I sure hope it does have an effect,” Mr. White said of the new law as he packed his car with groceries. “I wouldn’t want to show proof of citizenship, but I also don’t feel it is racial profiling. You are going to look different if you are an alien, and cops know.”

Mr. White apparently has an amazing ability to just look at a person and know whether he's illegal.

Funkenpants wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

I predict (and hope) this causes the state to kick the Governor and anyone who voted to pass this out of office. At the same time I hope Arpiao is linked in some fashion and his ass is tossed out as well.

The NY Times ran a story today on the new law, and this guy quoted in the article sounds like the classic Arpiao supporter:

In a nearby neighborhood, Ron White, 52, said he felt a sense of relief that something was finally being done about “the illegals” — whom he blames for ills like congregating on the streets, breaking into homes in his neighborhood, draining tax dollars and taking jobs from Americans.

“I sure hope it does have an effect,” Mr. White said of the new law as he packed his car with groceries. “I wouldn’t want to show proof of citizenship, but I also don’t feel it is racial profiling. You are going to look different if you are an alien, and cops know.”

Mr. White apparently has an amazing ability to just look at a person and know whether he's illegal.

The guy's smart, what can you say. I also heard that promiscuous illegal alien women in Arizona cause earthquakes in Iran.

Funkenpants wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

I predict (and hope) this causes the state to kick the Governor and anyone who voted to pass this out of office. At the same time I hope Arpiao is linked in some fashion and his ass is tossed out as well.

The NY Times ran a story today on the new law, and this guy quoted in the article sounds like the classic Arpiao supporter:

In a nearby neighborhood, Ron White, 52, said he felt a sense of relief that something was finally being done about “the illegals” — whom he blames for ills like congregating on the streets, breaking into homes in his neighborhood, draining tax dollars and taking jobs from Americans.

“I sure hope it does have an effect,” Mr. White said of the new law as he packed his car with groceries. “I wouldn’t want to show proof of citizenship, but I also don’t feel it is racial profiling. You are going to look different if you are an alien, and cops know.”

Mr. White apparently has an amazing ability to just look at a person and know whether he's illegal.

The main reason Arpiao stays in office is because he takes care of the older people in places such as Sun City. I'm hoping this causes enough people to get angry and vote his ass out.

Actually I hope the AZ budget is completely drained by wrongful arrest lawsuits, as I also hope the Utah budget is completely drained investigating potential "miscarriage murders". Legislatures need to realize that there are real costs associated with bullsh*t laws and until people start footing the bill for these ridiculous laws, the accountability won’t be there.

My reaction to this is, the same could have been said of Colombia 20-30 years ago. Colombia exports more cocaine now, than in the period of murder, kidnapping under Escobar. Mostly because the US stopped interfering politically, and started aiding in actually beneficial ways thanks to the CIA and DEA. And Bogota is safer than Baltimore too.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Not that I ever wanted to go to Arizona, but this is kinda sad.

TAZ89 wrote:

Arizona is the main highway for all human trafficing and drug traffic into the U.S. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the U.S., all due to Mexican on Mexican kidnappings.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?...

Why not just ban mexicans outright then? But I'm pretty sure it's not only illegal immigrants who are involved in the drug trade. Maybe just expel anyone who looks brown from the state, and hope that fixes everything.

KingGorilla wrote:

My reaction to this is, the same could have been said of Colombia 20-30 years ago. Colombia exports more cocaine now, than in the period of murder, kidnapping under Escobar. Mostly because the US stopped interfering politically, and started aiding in actually beneficial ways thanks to the CIA and DEA. And Bogota is safer than Baltimore too.

That really depends on who you are. If you're a black man in Baltimore, the city can be a remarkably dangerous place, but if you're white the majority of the city is actually pretty safe. Most of the violence tends to be black on black.

If you're in Bogata, on the other hand, it appears being a tourist is pretty dangerous business due to the popularity of kidnapping for profit.

Mex wrote:

Why not just ban mexicans outright then?

Because we don't have a problem with Mexicans.

We do have a problem with illegal aliens and drug and human smuggling. A lot of the problem here is that the Federal Government did a good job of closing the Texas and California borders, but a lot of that traffic is coming to Arizona becasue its easier to get across the border. But, the Federal Government has done little to help Arizona with the rise in problems that brought.

BTW, Mexicans are able to apply for legal entry into the U.S., they already make up almost 25% of our LEGAL immigrants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...

that wiki article wrote:

Many cities, including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have adopted sanctuary ordinances banning police from asking people about their immigration status.

Well, scratch one of those off the list.

Can I *cough* Arizona?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...(1994)

I know there are a few key differences, but this law is headed for the trash.

It's really, actually, rather sad to see the constant fulfillment of the adage that the GOP will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Latinos, aside from their obvious brown skin, are just about the ideal demographic for an expanded GOP base and yet the party insists on finding and using the most overtly racist and inflammatory ways to alienate them from supporting them.

Seriously. This is {ableist slur}.

Paleocon wrote:

It's really, actually, rather sad to see the constant fulfillment of the adage that the GOP will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Latinos, aside from their obvious brown skin, are just about the ideal demographic for an expanded GOP base and yet the party insists on finding and using the most overtly racist and inflammatory ways to alienate them from supporting them.

Seriously. This is {ableist slur}.

They would risk including Latinos at the expense of alienating (pun intended) a large portion of their base - the xenophobic white one. It's just a numbers game.

I'm also amused by the timing of the resurrection of the immigration "debate": Dems just passed a healthcare bill (crippled as it is, it was considered a victory for some reason), Obama got some real progress made on nuclear disarmament, and the sights were set squarely on financial reform.

baggachipz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It's really, actually, rather sad to see the constant fulfillment of the adage that the GOP will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Latinos, aside from their obvious brown skin, are just about the ideal demographic for an expanded GOP base and yet the party insists on finding and using the most overtly racist and inflammatory ways to alienate them from supporting them.

Seriously. This is {ableist slur}.

They would risk including Latinos at the expense of alienating (pun intended) a large portion of their base - the xenophobic white one. It's just a numbers game.

I'm also amused by the timing of the resurrection of the immigration "debate": Dems just passed a healthcare bill (crippled as it is, it was considered a victory for some reason), Obama got some real progress made on nuclear disarmament, and the sights were set squarely on financial reform.

Playing to the xenophobic white base is a long term losing proposition though. It's a shrinking demographic in every sense of the word. Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic group while whites are actually shrinking as a demographic. And as more information becomes available, xenophobia (much like homophobia) is less common as well.

This seems to me an incredibly shortsighted issue to hang the party on.

Paleocon wrote:
baggachipz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It's really, actually, rather sad to see the constant fulfillment of the adage that the GOP will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Latinos, aside from their obvious brown skin, are just about the ideal demographic for an expanded GOP base and yet the party insists on finding and using the most overtly racist and inflammatory ways to alienate them from supporting them.

Seriously. This is {ableist slur}.

They would risk including Latinos at the expense of alienating (pun intended) a large portion of their base - the xenophobic white one. It's just a numbers game.

I'm also amused by the timing of the resurrection of the immigration "debate": Dems just passed a healthcare bill (crippled as it is, it was considered a victory for some reason), Obama got some real progress made on nuclear disarmament, and the sights were set squarely on financial reform.

Playing to the xenophobic white base is a long term losing proposition though. It's a shrinking demographic in every sense of the word. Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic group while whites are actually shrinking as a demographic. And as more information becomes available, xenophobia (much like homophobia) is less common as well.

This seems to me an incredibly shortsighted issue to hang the party on.

When has that stopped them before?

baggachipz wrote:

I'm also amused by the timing of the resurrection of the immigration "debate": Dems just passed a healthcare bill (crippled as it is, it was considered a victory for some reason), Obama got some real progress made on nuclear disarmament, and the sights were set squarely on financial reform.

Obama wants hispanics fired up for the midterms. This AZ law is a gift to the democrats because anyone with brown skin, citizen or not, could expect to have cops stopping them and demanding they prove their American. I imagine it's incredibly offensive to any hispanic voter, who knows that the paler citizens of AZ won't be stopped by policemen looking for Euros who have overstayed their visas.

BTW, I loved hearing the AZ governor complain today that some groups were calling for a boycott of AZ tourism and industry until the law is repealed. I thought republicans were all about accepting all the consequences of one's decisions?

Paleocon wrote:
baggachipz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It's really, actually, rather sad to see the constant fulfillment of the adage that the GOP will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Latinos, aside from their obvious brown skin, are just about the ideal demographic for an expanded GOP base and yet the party insists on finding and using the most overtly racist and inflammatory ways to alienate them from supporting them.

Seriously. This is {ableist slur}.

They would risk including Latinos at the expense of alienating (pun intended) a large portion of their base - the xenophobic white one. It's just a numbers game.

I'm also amused by the timing of the resurrection of the immigration "debate": Dems just passed a healthcare bill (crippled as it is, it was considered a victory for some reason), Obama got some real progress made on nuclear disarmament, and the sights were set squarely on financial reform.

Playing to the xenophobic white base is a long term losing proposition though. It's a shrinking demographic in every sense of the word. Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic group while whites are actually shrinking as a demographic. And as more information becomes available, xenophobia (much like homophobia) is less common as well.

This seems to me an incredibly shortsighted issue to hang the party on.

Yeah, but according to the census Hispanics are white!

SallyNasty wrote:

When has that stopped them before?

Yep. Also, I think they're (rightfully) counting on the short memories of voters. How long until the numbers dictate a strategy change? 10 years? 30 years? It'll be really easy to turn around and, in the span of a year or two, become "Latino-friendly" as a party. They make cynical gestures every now and again, but for now it's easy to keep playing the same card without much future consequence.

Funkenpants wrote:

Obama wants hispanics fired up for the midterms.

Eh, then it's about 5 months too early. It may boil over in the near-term, but will reach a calm simmer by November.

baggachipz wrote:

Eh, then it's about 5 months too early. It may boil over in the near-term, but will reach a calm simmer by November.

Yeah this is a pretty astute observation. The rage against healthcare is already dying down, and that was a gigantic, national issue that the GOP staked their careers on getting blocked. This is very racist but pretty isolated issue, and like Jan Brewer herself said, no one really cares anymore about her decision to require photo IDs at voting booths back when she was secretary of state.

That, plus the fact that this law seems so starkly unconstitutional, I doubt these "Jan Crow laws" will do much to motivate the hispanic vote in November.

baggachipz wrote:

Eh, then it's about 5 months too early. It may boil over in the near-term, but will reach a calm simmer by November.

It depends. Something that fades from the mainstream media in a few weeks can linger on in ethnic media and politics for a long time. It's also possible that anglo-saxon mexiphobics in other states are going to clamor for laws like AZ's over the next few months.

Seth wrote:

This is very racist but pretty isolated issue, and like Jan Brewer herself said, no one really cares anymore about her decision to require photo IDs at voting booths back when she was secretary of state.

That's not all that controversial. There's something commonsense in being asked to prove who you say you are while voting, and it's a rule that everyone has to follow (I get asked for my ID, for example, and I'm a paler shade of white). Having the cops being able to stop you to demand you prove your citizenship is a whole different kind of activity, particularly when you know your anglo-saxon neighbor isn't getting asked the same question.