Arizona Immigration Law Revisited

[rushmc 23]

I find this artice interesting in the context of you comments

Quote

CBS News) Monday is the beginning of the final three weeks of the Supreme Court's 2012 term, a period when the court will be releasing decisions, generally on Mondays, on cases they've heard this year.


The two big cases awaiting decisions, which can be handed down between now and June 28, are the constitutionality of President Obama's health care plan and the Arizona immigration case, both of which have received national attention. Below is a primer on those cases, along with one other involving broadcast indecency.


The Affordable Care Act

The president's health care law, officially titled the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was argued before the Supreme Court over three days in March. Twenty-six states, individuals, the National Federation of Individual Businesses and others challenged the government on the law's constitutionality. The upcoming decision will not be "anything less than historic," Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog told Hotsheet.


The issues: Several issues are at stake in this case. The one receiving the most attention is the individual mandate, which says most individuals must purchase health insurance. Opponents say the government is overreaching by mandating people purchase a product from a private company.


The other question, which is receiving less attention, is the law's expansion of Medicaid. States say it places an undue burden on them to pay for the expansion of the health care program for the poor. The federal government says this is another expansion of Medicaid, which has happened several times before, and the rules are the same: participate with the federal funds allocated or opt out of the entire program.


Finally, if the individual mandate or the Medicaid provision is struck down, the Court will decide if the entire health care law stands or if the provisions can be severed from the law.


The Obama administration argued that the law is only possible as a whole.

"The issue of severability is trying to figure what Congress meant" when it passed the law, Georgetown Law Professor Susan Low Bloch said.

(bolding added)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57450109-503544/supreme-court-to-rule-soon-on-health-care-immigration-what-happens-next/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GQ_jumper 4]

HOLY JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST!!!!!!!!

Did a single person even respond to the original topic? All I have seen this far is a liberal v racist/redneck debate, with each side calling the other the aforementioned names.

Is the internet so overflowing with retardation that people can't discuss a topic, this is pathetic.

People have loosely mentioned the original thread in the civil rights posts, but I haven't seen one reasonable argument for or against the immigration bill, with the exception of a post from Quade I believe it was(which I thank you for even if I don't like it!).

Apparently the state of our education system is worse than originally though if people can't grasp the basics of reading comprehension.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[DanG 1]

Here you go: the bill is wrong not because it stomps on the rights of illegals, it is wrong because it stomps on the rights of US citizens, all US citizens. If this law were enforced properly, everyone would be required to carry papers with them at all times proving their legal status, including fully, natural born US citizens. We have this thing called the presumption of innocence. This law turns that on its head, by presuming a person is an illegal alien until that person can prove otherwise. It flies in the face of the very concept of a free country. That is the problem with this law. It is not about "liberals" protecting illegals aliens, it is about citizens wanting to keep America the land of the free.

- Dan G

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

HOLY JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST!!!!!!!!

Did a single person even respond to the original topic? All I have seen this far is a liberal v racist/redneck debate, with each side calling the other the aforementioned names.

Is the internet so overflowing with retardation that people can't discuss a topic, this is pathetic.

People have loosely mentioned the original thread in the civil rights posts, but I haven't seen one reasonable argument for or against the immigration bill, with the exception of a post from Quade I believe it was(which I thank you for even if I don't like it!).

Apparently the state of our education system is worse than originally though if people can't grasp the basics of reading comprehension.

My thoughts exactly...

Psst... you forgot, [on topic]

All of my upcoming posts with have it...

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

Here you go: the bill is wrong not because it stomps on the rights of illegals, it is wrong because it stomps on the rights of US citizens, all US citizens. If this law were enforced properly, everyone would be required to carry papers with them at all times proving their legal status, including fully, natural born US citizens. We have this thing called the presumption of innocence. This law turns that on its head, by presuming a person is an illegal alien until that person can prove otherwise. It flies in the face of the very concept of a free country. That is the problem with this law. It is not about "liberals" protecting illegals aliens, it is about citizens wanting to keep America the land of the free.

I have to disagree with your interpretation that the law presumes guilt until proven otherwise. When you get pulled over your name is run through the system to see if you have an outstanding warrant, but you don't claim that to be a presumption of guilt. Being here illegally is a crime, just like skipping out on a court date, and all the officers are doing is making sure you haven't broken a law.

And the whole debate about carrying "papers" is also a fallacy. The law states that if you can produce an ID of any kind that requires proof of citizenship to attain you are in the clear. Well when have you even not had to produce an ID at every traffic stop, or anytime you deal with law enforcement? This law is less invasive than the immigration checkpoints set up by the federal agencies. Those checkpoints stop EVERYONE and ask where you are from.

There is nothing in the law that says everyone is presumed guilty. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally after being stopped for something else then you can be questioned, which is something that is done now anyways.

If you lived in an area with a lot of DUI fatalities would you be offended by DUI checkpoints? Would you say that you are being presumed drunk because you are stopped? Arizona has a serious illegal immigration issue and the feds aren't doing their part. All the state is doing is allowing itself the opportunity to enforce the laws that are already in place to protect it.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[DanG 1]

Quote

When you get pulled over your name is run through the system to see if you have an outstanding warrant, but you don't claim that to be a presumption of guilt. Being here illegally is a crime, just like skipping out on a court date, and all the officers are doing is making sure you haven't broken a law.

But that's not, at least to my understanding, the same as what the Arizona laws requires. The law does not require officers to hold you if your name comes back hot on a database search. It requires them to hold you if they suspect you are an illegal, and you can't prove otherwise. That is my problem with the law. I have to prove I'm legal. They don't have to prove I'm illegal.

Quote

And the whole debate about carrying "papers" is also a fallacy. The law states that if you can produce an ID of any kind that requires proof of citizenship to attain you are in the clear.

Sounds like carrying papers to me.

Quote

Well when have you even not had to produce an ID at every traffic stop, or anytime you deal with law enforcement? This law is less invasive than the immigration checkpoints set up by the federal agencies. Those checkpoints stop EVERYONE and ask where you are from.

First, this law is not restricted to motorists. Anyone having any contact with the police is subject to this law. Walking down the street and turning in a wallet you find to a beat cop is contact, and this law would require me to prove to the officer that I am legal before he lets me go. I have a problem with checkpoints, too, so I'm not comfortable letting that slope continue to slip.

Quote

There is nothing in the law that says everyone is presumed guilty. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally after being stopped for something else then you can be questioned, which is something that is done now anyways.

I believe you are incorrect. The law requires them to hold me until I produce documentation. That is depriving me of my freedom until I can prove my innocence.

Quote

If you lived in an area with a lot of DUI fatalities would you be offended by DUI checkpoints?

Yes.

Quote

Would you say that you are being presumed drunk because you are stopped?

I would if the cops required me to prove that I was sober. As it stands now, they have to prove you are drunk, not the other way around.

Quote

Arizona has a serious illegal immigration issue and the feds aren't doing their part.

Election year grandstanding. Deportations and border protection capabilities are up across the board. The federal government is doing its job.

- Dan G

[tkhayes 348]

FYI, I am not for Obamacare either - it is a halfway fucked up useless policy that does not enough of anything.

That does not mean I support private healthcare as it stands today in the USA.

The Republican party is on a self-destruct mode, though,

I actually wish the democrats would just hand power over to them, vote unanimously 100% in favor of whatever measures the Reb's want. It would only take 8 years for the complete annihilation of the Republican party for the destructive policies that would be implemented and would probably end up in a civil war.

Would be an interesting social experiment to watch from the outside.

And ridiculous immigration laws that stop innocent people in the streets tromp all pover the civil rights of American Citizens - it is unacceptable.

No one on the right seems to notice that Obama has deported more illegals than any other President in history - you ought to be pinning a fucking medal on his chest, given your support for such policies.

But of course, it would be the Partisan right to vote exactly opposite of whatever Obama wants or decides, whether or not is a agreeable....

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

The Obama administration argued that the law is only possible as a whole.

That is simply a quote, not a fact. It does nto make policy.

Name a piece fo legislation that made it through the process without some revision, so it actually means nothing.

guaranteed that the SC will not strike down the law in its entirety. Guaranteed that the law will not be repealed in its entirety, even if the Republicans won a 99% majority in November.

guaranteed. The same corporate interests that are funding Obama, are funding this bill and the Republicans, so it will not go away. It might just get modified.


Back to the thread.

Stopping people on the streets to ask for ID is unconstitutional.

The USA is heading closer and closer to a police state, with the help of far-right (and often Republican) interests supporting that cause

This is very very bad for the country and Unconstitutional.

period.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The Obama administration argued that the law is only possible as a whole.

That is simply a quote, not a fact. It does nto make policy.

Name a piece fo legislation that made it through the process without some revision, so it actually means nothing.

guaranteed that the SC will not strike down the law in its entirety. Guaranteed that the law will not be repealed in its entirety, even if the Republicans won a 99% majority in November.

guaranteed. The same corporate interests that are funding Obama, are funding this bill and the Republicans, so it will not go away. It might just get modified.


Back to the thread.

Stopping people on the streets to ask for ID is unconstitutional.That is not what they would do. Nice admin talking point

The USA is heading closer and closer to a police state, with the help of far-right (and often Republican) interests supporting that cause

This is very very bad for the country and Unconstitutional.

period.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dmcoco84 5]

Is walking up to a citizen eating ice cream with his son... and asking for identification, a lawful contact?

Edit: citizen ---> individual

Quote

And ridiculous immigration laws that stop innocent people in the streets tromp all pover the civil rights of American Citizens - it is unacceptable.

Quote

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Back to the thread.

Stopping people on the streets to ask for ID is unconstitutional.

The USA is heading closer and closer to a police state, with the help of far-right (and often Republican) interests supporting that cause

This is very very bad for the country and Unconstitutional.

period.

You should actually "Read The Bill" more and listen to Obama less...

Period.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Is walking up to a citizen eating ice cream with his son... and asking for identification, a lawful contact?

Edit: citizen ---> individual

Quote

And ridiculous immigration laws that stop innocent people in the streets tromp all pover the civil rights of American Citizens - it is unacceptable.

Quote

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)

Don't be naive. LEOs in the US have used "lawful" pretexts to stop people since the Constitution was first ratified. This law will not just enable, but result, in LEOs fabricating "lawful" reasons to stop people who look Hispanic. It's a safe bet that pedestrians who look German-Irish and are wearing polo shirts aren't going to be challenged, "papers, por favor".

And to those who use the analogy of a driver having to produce his license, that's a poor analogy. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege that requires a valid driver's license and vehicle registration. Walking down the fucking street is a right, not a privilege.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

What I don't understand is why people in the US feel that doing the same thing that every other country in the world does is so offensive or illegal.

+1

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

What I don't understand is why people in the US feel that doing the same thing that every other country in the world does is so offensive or illegal.

+1

-1.

If the US started behaving like every other country, it would become... Canada. Good god.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

I believe you are incorrect. The law requires them to hold me until I produce documentation. That is depriving me of my freedom until I can prove my innocence.

Nope... you, are incorrect.



Seriously people... is it not known how incredibly easy it is to prove citizenship?

About two years ago, I was down in FL visiting a friend. He and another buddy had alcohol on them, I wasn't drinking... and we walked from his house, about half a mile away to a shoreline on a river, that was technically private property (but still in his same neighborhood), however the sidewalk 10 feet from that shore line, was not...

After an incident way down the street that we saw, that we did not want to be involved in... cops arrived, after the fact (it was not a fight)... a cop drove past and happened to see us. Stopped, and then two others came and they asked what we were doing, stated that it was private property and we stated where my friend lived... they separated use, questioned us, and they asked for ID.

NONE OF US... had "our papers."

Names and socials... and I told them I was out of state.

They checked us all... cleared us all... and left.

And even though we were not apart of the incident, they had every right to do what they did...

And if any one of us had a warrant for arrest, for any reason... they would have 100% made an arrest.

Totally Legal.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Don't be naive. LEOs in the US have used "lawful" pretexts to stop people since the Constitution was first ratified. This law will not just enable, but result, in LEOs fabricating "lawful" reasons to stop people who look Hispanic.

Absolute Crap.

So using the Presidents example... eating ice cream with your kid. What is the legal justification for a cop to walk up to a Hispanic citizen and ask for ID?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The Obama administration argued that the law is only possible as a whole.

That is simply a quote, not a fact. It does nto make policy.

Name a piece fo legislation that made it through the process without some revision, so it actually means nothing.

guaranteed that the SC will not strike down the law in its entirety. Guaranteed that the law will not be repealed in its entirety, even if the Republicans won a 99% majority in November.

As stated by the Administration and understood by all, if the purchasing mandate is stricken out, the whole thing falls apart. The economics around insurance guarantee the outcome.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Don't be naive. LEOs in the US have used "lawful" pretexts to stop people since the Constitution was first ratified. This law will not just enable, but result, in LEOs fabricating "lawful" reasons to stop people who look Hispanic.

Absolute Crap.

So using the Presidents example... eating ice cream with your kid. What is the legal justification for a cop to walk up to a Hispanic citizen and ask for ID?

You have to get to the ice cream, and eventually leave. There's always a technical violation to cite motorists for, and pedestrian jaywalking rules are rarely followed or enforced, but still present.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Don't be naive. LEOs in the US have used "lawful" pretexts to stop people since the Constitution was first ratified. This law will not just enable, but result, in LEOs fabricating "lawful" reasons to stop people who look Hispanic.

Absolute Crap.

So using the Presidents example... eating ice cream with your kid. What is the legal justification for a cop to walk up to a Hispanic citizen and ask for ID?

I'm not talking about actual justification, which is the facts as they truthfully are, I'm talking about pretextual justification, which are the officer's version of the "facts" which he writes into his police report and which he testifies to in court to support his stop. Criminal defense attorneys deal with and/or observe this in court practically every day.

How many ways could a police officer do this? How good is one's imagination?

[billvon 3,132]

>What is the legal justification for a cop to walk up to a Hispanic citizen and ask for ID?

"We heard about someone stealing in this neighborhood. You gotta receipt for that ice cream bar?"

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

You should actually "Read The Bill" more and listen to Obama less...

I don't listen to Obama.

Florida stand your ground laws had the 'intention' of allowing law-abiding citizens to use deadly force to defend themselves and their families and property, but the law is now being abused by drug violence and idiots to claim self-defense with never-intended results.

It is a bad lawand is being abused.

Arizona's law is a bad law and is guaranteed to be abused.

For every 'nice encounter' you have had with police, there are thousands who have not shared your experience. &00,000 stop and frisks in NYC alone in the past year. http://ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk

You sir, are naive to think that giving someone 'power' will not be abused.

[dmcoco84 5]

Just say it, Quade... all the AZ cops are racist and they have nothing better to do, and all they WANT to do, is send all the "wetbacks" packing. That's where it always comes to.

Your example is not a lawful contact.

This law mirrors federal law, and it will be upheld.


And... I'm not actually concerned about Hispanics here for work (who aren't driving drunk or breaking some other law that initiates a lawful contact.) I'm concerned about all the Arabs getting across our border, and the fact that Hezbollah is working on our border.

[quade 4]

You really shouldn't insult billvon by confusing him with me.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dmcoco84 5]

Indeed... LOL.

After reading 5 of your posts... I saw the green, again.

Woops

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Woops

That's the Eyetalians. If you want to talk about the Mafia, start another thread.