AZ immigration law

Funkenpants wrote:
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the AZ governor complain today that some groups were calling for a boycott of AZ tourism and industry until the law is repealed.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?

It seems like this is aimed at firing up conservative white voters as much as Hispanic voters.

Funkenpants wrote:
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.

Especially if a good portion of the populace had to suffer the indignity of "producing papers" at the hands of the local police force. That'll linger in the collective memory for some time.

Nevin73 wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
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.

Especially if a good portion of the populace had to suffer the indignity of "producing papers" at the hands of the local police force. That'll linger in the collective memory for some time.

Also, the first lawsuits should be really hitting their stride in the heart of election season.

Tanglebones wrote:

It seems like this is aimed at firing up conservative white voters as much as Hispanic voters.

If so, think about the problems that creates. Those two groups cannot co-exist within the same party. It's one of the central problems GOP leaders have in building a bigger party.

Seth wrote:
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.

The law doesn't go into effect until 90 days after the current legislative session ends. I'm not sure a law can hit the courts to determine its constitutionality until it actually goes into effect. If their legislative session ends in July like it has before, the law will go into effect in October...just a few weeks before the election.

Funkenpants wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

It seems like this is aimed at firing up conservative white voters as much as Hispanic voters.

If so, think about the problems that creates. Those two groups cannot co-exist within the same party. It's one of the central problems GOP leaders have in building a bigger party.

Sorry - to be clear, I believe this particular legislation, written by Arizona Republicans and signed into law by the Republican governor is designed to appeal to the conservative white base.

Tanglebones wrote:

Sorry - to be clear, I believe this particular legislation, written by Arizona Republicans and signed into law by the Republican governor is designed to appeal to the conservative white base.

I know. What you have to keep in mind is that the republican party is made up of wealthy libertine corporatists and socially-conservative middle and lower class whites. Both could be considered "conservative." However, it's only the middle and lower class whites who go nuts over illegal immigration. Business leaders kind of love it.

Funkenpants wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Sorry - to be clear, I believe this particular legislation, written by Arizona Republicans and signed into law by the Republican governor is designed to appeal to the conservative white base.

I know. What you have to keep in mind is that the republican party is made up of wealthy libertine corporatists and socially-conservative middle and lower class whites. Both could be considered "conservative." However, it's only the middle and lower class whites who go nuts over illegal immigration. Business leaders kind of love it.

Ah, gotcha - I missed which two groups you were referring to. I think the business leaders believe that there will be selective enforcement of the law, as there always has been; I doubt that major campaign contributors will have their golf courses or hotels raided frequently enough to have a major impact on the bottom line.

McCain has now stated that the reason AZ had to pass this law is because Obama failed to "secure our borders".

I have a question. Of all the border states, what do Texas and California do that AZ has not? I know a bit about Texas, very little on AZ.

goman wrote:

This law is obviously unconstitutional.

I'm just curious...why do you think the law is unconstitutional?

Paleocon wrote:

I am waiting to see how the state of Arizona decides to define "reason to believe they are here illegally". Is Jonman's Brit accent enough? Are my slanty eyes? Or does the minimum basic standard include brown skin?

Yay for pasty English skin!

And ah been practissin' mah uh-merkin ack-sent just in case the po-leece come a'knockin'.

Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am waiting to see how the state of Arizona decides to define "reason to believe they are here illegally". Is Jonman's Brit accent enough? Are my slanty eyes? Or does the minimum basic standard include brown skin?

Yay for pasty English skin!

And ah been practissin' mah uh-merkin ack-sent just in case the po-leece come a'knockin'.

And, apparently, we can't smell a rat.

Paleocon wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am waiting to see how the state of Arizona decides to define "reason to believe they are here illegally". Is Jonman's Brit accent enough? Are my slanty eyes? Or does the minimum basic standard include brown skin?

Yay for pasty English skin!

And ah been practissin' mah uh-merkin ack-sent just in case the po-leece come a'knockin'.

And, apparently, we can't smell a rat.

Ah know, ride? The queer thang is that ah myself can pick a limey acter pretendin' ta be uh-merkin out bah ear alone. And mah fake uh-merkin ack-sent sounds aboud as good as this here reads.

Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am waiting to see how the state of Arizona decides to define "reason to believe they are here illegally". Is Jonman's Brit accent enough? Are my slanty eyes? Or does the minimum basic standard include brown skin?

Yay for pasty English skin!

And ah been practissin' mah uh-merkin ack-sent just in case the po-leece come a'knockin'.

And, apparently, we can't smell a rat.

Ah know, ride? The queer thang is that ah myself can pick a limey acter pretendin' ta be uh-merkin out bah ear alone. And mah fake uh-merkin ack-sent sounds aboud as good as this here reads.

Jeez. That's about as atrocious as Rene Zellwiger in Bridget Jones.

camnipotent wrote:
goman wrote:

This law is obviously unconstitutional.

I'm just curious...why do you think the law is unconstitutional?

4th amendment, Federalism.

Yeah, it is a fairly simple illegal search and seizure problem. There are no parameters of how a police official is to identify someone they have reason to suspect is an illegal alien.

At worst is is legislated police harassment against latinos and arabs.

In my opinion, I think this is an ill conceived plan at getting white conservative vote. Despite the fact that they are fast becoming the minority, they are usually the ones who actually vote. Generally local and state elections don't get a high turnout. I remember when Texas had the opportunity to get a Hispanic governor over Rick Perry and all the Latino/Mexican-American advocate groups tried to get people to go out and vote for the guy. In the end, hardly any Hispanics (compared to conservative whites) went out to vote.

I will agree that illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed, I believe the best course of action is to enforce the laws that are already in place, change up immigration law to make it easier for people to come over and should they commit a heinous crime either deport or throw the book at them (i still haven't decided which would be better)

In my scholarly opinion**, I agree with KingGorilla that it's going to have some issues with illegal search and seizure.

**I graduated with a degree in forensic science, so illegal search and seizure was drilled into our heads.

bilbodiaz wrote:

I believe the best course of action is to enforce the laws that are already in place, change up immigration law to make it easier for people to come over and should they commit a heinous crime either deport or throw the book at them (i still haven't decided which would be better)

Anyone who commits a crime will get charged like a citizen. So far I haven't seen any reports of any evidence that illegal immigrats commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens of the same socioeconomic status. But that doesn't stop republicans from talking like illegal immigrants cause skyrocketing crime rates.

Frankly, this allegation kind of amazes me. If people are coming across the border to pick lettuce, clean hotels, and do construction jobs- when are they finding the time to commit all these horrible crimes against the local anglo-saxons?

Funkenpants wrote:
bilbodiaz wrote:

I believe the best course of action is to enforce the laws that are already in place, change up immigration law to make it easier for people to come over and should they commit a heinous crime either deport or throw the book at them (i still haven't decided which would be better)

Anyone who commits a crime will get charged like a citizen. So far I haven't seen any reports of any evidence that illegal immigrats commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens of the same socioeconomic status. But that doesn't stop republicans from talking like illegal immigrants cause skyrocketing crime rates.

Frankly, this allegation kind of amazes me. If people are coming across the border to pick lettuce, clean hotels, and do construction jobs- when are they finding the time to commit all these horrible crimes against the local anglo-saxons?

Well - they just work harder, don'cha know? (sarcasm emote)

Not sure if this was mentioned. And I can't believe I missed it. But the Daily Show reminded me. A US Citizen cannot be forced to show documented ID as proof of citizenship by police without arresting you. You need only give your name if asked to ID yourself. Anything further must be "voluntary." Failure to show ID cannot, of itself be an arrestable offense.

goman wrote:

4th amendment, Federalism.

Is there any specifc text in the legislation that you think violates the 4th Amendment? I've read through it and I'm just curious what parts of the law people believe are violating the 4th Amendment.

camnipotent wrote:
goman wrote:

4th amendment, Federalism.

Is there any specifc text in the legislation that you think violates the 4th Amendment? I've read through it and I'm just curious what parts of the law people believe are violating the 4th Amendment.

Read what the other people wrote. I am probably not as eloquent as they have already posted.

IMAGE(http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/27/goog.jpg)

KingGorilla wrote:

Not sure if this was mentioned. And I can't believe I missed it. But the Daily Show reminded me. A US Citizen cannot be forced to show documented ID as proof of citizenship by police without arresting you. You need only give your name if asked to ID yourself. Anything further must be "voluntary." Failure to show ID cannot, of itself be an arrestable offense.

Interesting, I had heard in NYC that this was not true; nothing to do with citizenship, but if asked for ID by a cop and you do not have any, you can be arrested.

I do know that Truant Police can arrest someone during the school day if they look like they are of school age but do not have any ID.

EDIT: So, upon re-reviewing the discussion about being arrested for lack of ID that I could find quickly, it looks like you need to have broken some law first, no matter how minor. The case that was at the top of my mind was a bicyclist who was arrested last year. He was riding his bike on the sidewalk, which is worth a ticket (when enforced) in NYC. Since he didn't have any ID, they arrested him, and he was locked up for 22 hours. Given the vast number of things that are illegal here (putting a package in a seat next to you on the subway, walking between subway cars, the almost unavoidable jaywalking), most NYC residents probably break a dozen laws a day, and I suppose should always carry ID if they want to avoid being arrested after being caught breaking one of them.

KingGorilla wrote:

Not sure if this was mentioned. And I can't believe I missed it. But the Daily Show reminded me. A US Citizen cannot be forced to show documented ID as proof of citizenship by police without arresting you. You need only give your name if asked to ID yourself. Anything further must be "voluntary." Failure to show ID cannot, of itself be an arrestable offense.

It seems to me that this legality screening is a secondary process involved with officers that are already stopping some individual because of obvious law-breaking, probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In itself, I would think that failure to show ID will not result in an arrest; the people who are asked for their identification are likely already doing something the officers may perceive as an offense that might result in arrest, and the possibility of snagging an illegal to boot is just a situational excuse to possibly get rid of some hispanic-looking person who may commit more offenses in the future.

I dread the possibility that refusing to show ID will be considered disorderly conduct in the eyes of some officers, and reason enough to issue an arrest.

I'm glad all of my Indian and Filipino family members (who get mistaken for mexicans all the time), live outside of Arizona. If you look brown, you're kind of screwed.

Edit: Tannhouser'd!

It looks like the GOP is trying to distance itself from this. When Meaghan McCain, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Karl Rove line up against this law, you know the GOP has gone off the rails in passing it.

This is Arizona's stop-and-identify law:

Arizona Rev. Stat. Title 13, Chapter 24-12 wrote:

It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

There's no way this new immigration law will last. For comparison, this much more narrow California law was struck down by the Supreme Court for being "unconstitutionally vague":

Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: . . . (e) who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification.

I'm going to Phoenix on Saturday. What would make me more conspicuously ridiculous?

#1 - Giant sombrero

#2 - Poncho

#3 - Gigantic fake mustache

#4 - Other?

Need to figure this out soon so I can go "test" the law.

Get a tan first.