Appeals court lifts ban on Sherriff Arpaio's workplace raids

[adaher]

Appeals court reverses ban on Sheriff Joe Arpaio workplace raids

The underlying lawsuit, filed by Puente Arizona and other civil-rights advocates, challenges the merits of two state laws that make it a felony for undocumented immigrants to use stolen identities to obtain work.

Arpaio had announced he was disbanding his work-site identity-theft enforcement unit before the preliminary injunction. During the unit’s existence, it conducted an estimated 83 operations, arresting more than 780 people. The operations drew criticism for overwhelmingly targeting low-level employees at businesses such as restaurants and car washes, rather than their employers.

The plaintiffs said the laws were less about public safety and instead designed to work as a deportation machine. In this vein, they said, the state laws were pre-empted by federal immigration rules.

Campbell’s January 2015 ruling tended to agree, and said the laws likely would be found unconstitutional. His injunction barred Arpaio’s deputies from executing their workplace raids and Montgomery’s office from using the laws to prosecute.

Monday’s opinion, issued by Senior District Judge Robert S. Lasnik and Circuit Judges Barry G. Silverman and Richard C. Tallman, acknowledged that while some applications of the laws may conflict with the federal government, this wasn’t the case when they were used to prosecute U.S. citizens.

“These bills were passed, at least in part, in an effort to solve some of Arizona’s problems stemming from illegal immigration,” the opinion stated. “But these bills were also aimed at curbing the growing and well-documented problem of identity theft in Arizona.”

Yep. While immigration is a federal prerogative, identity theft falls well under state and local jurisdiction.

[adaher]

I’d note that all three of those judges are Clinton appointees, so this is probably open and shut.

[DataX]

I only read the appeal at opinion, but it seems well reasoned to me. They went out of their way to say they weren’t commenting on the specific allegations in the individual case - only that the overall law wasn’t facially invalid.

Really can’t stand Arpaio and can’t wait for the day he’s in prison. Thats my wet dream at least.

[John_Mace]

Who or what is target of this Pit thread?

[adaher]

It can be moved if you like, I just figured given the passion Arpaio brings to any discussion that this was the place for it so people can freely tell us how they feel about him.

Yeah, the case doesn’t mean Arpaio can continue all of his antics, but the workplace raids themselves are actually doing the public’s business. Identity theft is a serious problem in this country and you can’t have an immigration exception to it.

[Saint_Cad]

As much of an asshole as Arpaio is, his detractors just end up looking like apologists for people breaking the law.

[BobLibDem]

In a way, it’s reassuring to see that the courts are willing to rule in favor of someone, despite his being a sociopath.

[BigT]

He still can’t resurrect the program without checking in with the U.S. Department of Justice to make sure it’s acceptable, though.

Not that I suspect it will, since using it for deportation won’t be allowed, and that is explicitly why the laws were passed. It’s obvious from the name, even.

[Miller]

Moved to GD.

[DrDeth]

@adaher

Identity theft is a serious problem in this country and you can’t have an immigration exception to it.

It* is* a serious problem, but not as done by Illegals. They dont try to open credit in your name and steal stuff. They just use your SSN. In most cases, the IRS/SSA spots this immediately.

Once in a great while, this means a letter from the IRS asking why you didnt report some W-2.

[octopus]

@adaher

Appeals court reverses ban on Sheriff Joe Arpaio workplace raids

Yep. While immigration is a federal prerogative, identity theft falls well under state and local jurisdiction.

If federal laws are supreme how does Colorado get away with making pot legal?

[running_coach]

@octopus

If federal laws are supreme how does Colorado get away with making pot legal?

It’s legal at the state level.

Because Obama has declined to enforce most Federal pot laws.

I believe the focus is on large grow operations and bulk dealing(whatever it’s called).
if the next President doesn’t like pot to be legal anywhere, he/she can choose to start enforcing all pot laws again.

[adaher]

@BigT

He still can’t resurrect the program without checking in with the U.S. Department of Justice to make sure it’s acceptable, though.

Not that I suspect it will, since using it for deportation won’t be allowed, and that is explicitly why the laws were passed. It’s obvious from the name, even.

He can’t resurrect the program as workplace raids, but he can continue to arrest individuals, which will still keep him very busy given the target rich environment.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@running_coach

if the next President doesn’t like pot to be legal anywhere, he/she can choose to start enforcing all pot laws again.

I’m trying to mentally calculate which of Trump or Clinton is likely to give less of a fuck about the issue.

[octopus]

@running_coach

It’s legal at the state level.

Because Obama has declined to enforce most Federal pot laws.

I believe the focus is on large grow operations and bulk dealing(whatever it’s called).
if the next President doesn’t like pot to be legal anywhere, he/she can choose to start enforcing all pot laws again.

So we live in a country where what’s legal or not is solely dependent on the President’s will? Why even have a pretense of a rule of law?

And why promote the hypocritical point of view that state or cities violating federal law is some huge transgression?

[running_coach]

@octopus

So we live in a country where what’s legal or not is solely dependent on the President’s will? Why even have a pretense of a rule of law?

And why promote the hypocritical point of view that state or cities violating federal law is some huge transgression?

It’s still illegal but it is a poor use of the DEA to go after someone with a couple of joints or using pot for a medical problem.

The states aren’t violating Federal law to make pot legal at the state level. It’s the users and sellers who are violating Federal law.

That’s why the pot shops are pretty much cash only. Banks won’t allow them to open accounts or accept credit/debit cards. I’m sure banking laws have something about illegal businesses and banks are regulated at the Fed. level.

[Kobal2]

@octopus

So we live in a country where what’s legal or not is solely dependent on the President’s will? Why even have a pretense of a rule of law?

The executive having the option of dragging its feet when it comes to enforcing the legislative is one of the checks and balances, akshully (for a time, and as long as the legislative doesn’t really care either).

It’s not just the President, either - every beat cop has the discretion of not enforcing dumb laws or ordinances. Of course, it cuts both ways, and they can also opt to move heaven and earth and ding you for every tiny shit in the books if they want to send a message or mess with you. It’s called power. You don’t like it, I don’t either ;).

[DrDeth]

@octopus

So we live in a country where what’s legal or not is solely dependent on the President’s will? Why even have a pretense of a rule of law?

There’s only so much resources. We can arrest pot growers or terrorists and kidnappers.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

It can be moved if you like, I just figured given the passion Arpaio brings to any discussion that this was the place for it so people can freely tell us how they feel about him.

Yeah, the case doesn’t mean Arpaio can continue all of his antics, but the workplace raids themselves are actually doing the public’s business. Identity theft is a serious problem in this country and you can’t have an immigration exception to it.

It is clear to me that if identity theft was the reason for Arpaio to be busy then it is telling that that office folded after the workplace raids were not allowed. It shows that the main target are the undocumented immigrants, not identity theft; as usual the priorities for guys like Arpaio are not much regarding more pressing criminal issues that are more numerous such as damaging identity theft cases that do not involve immigrants or more serious ones such as rapes or abuse.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Allegedly Not Only Harrassed Latinos But Ignored Crime

“Attrition Through Enforcement” is Governor Jan Brewer’s official battle cry. The idea is that by harassing resident Latinos the state will force its illegal immigrants to return to Mexico. In truth, however, the state’s slogan ought to be: “We Are So Concerned With Illegal Immigration That We Are Blowing Off Enforcement of Violent Crime.” Because that’s the gravamen of the federal complaint. Here are paragraphs 83-86 of the complaint against Arpaio and company:

83. MCSO has focused its most intensive law enforcement efforts on low-level immigration offenses over more serious crime from approximately 2006 to the present. MCSO's prioritization of immigration enforcement has resulted in a failure to meet its other law enforcement responsibilities, and provides further evidence of the Defendants' intent to discriminate against Latinos.

84. Statistical reports show an increase in violent crime in Maricopa County, and of homicides in particular, during the period of enhanced immigration enforcement.

85. MCSO has failed, for example, to adequately respond to reports of sexual violence, including allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of girls, thus exposing women and girls, who constitute the majority of victims of crimes of sexual violence in Maricopa County, to a disproportionate risk of physical and psychological harm.

86. Faced with such an increase in crime and the risk of harm presented by unaddressed sexual assaults, a law enforcement agency ordinarily would be expected to prioritize more serious offenses, such as crimes of sexual violence, over less serious offenses, such as low-level immigration offenses.

It doesn’t get more basic than that, does it? The federal government has just accused Maricopa County of abdicating the most basic function of law enforcement – protecting people from violent crime. To what extent would the national debate over immigration change if Americans, and women in particular, were to learn about the ramifications of this allegation: did you know that these cops hate illegal immigrants more than they love protecting you from “rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of girls?”

Identity theft is a big problem, but in reality most of the identity theft happens not for immigration issues:

Home

Highlights:

[ul]
[li]About 7% of persons age 16 or older were victims of identity theft in 2014, similar to findings in 2012.[/li][li] The majority of identity theft victims (86%) experienced the fraudulent use of existing account information, such as credit card or bank account information.[/li][li] The number of elderly victims of identity theft increased from 2.1 million in 2012 to 2.6 million in 2014.[/li][li] About 14% of identity theft victims experienced out-of-pocket losses of $1 or more. Of these victims, about half suffered losses of less than $100.[/li][li] Half of identity theft victims who were able to resolve any associated problems did so in a day or less.[/li][/ul]

[adaher]

One could say that all police precincts devote too much effort to things not having to do with violent crime. For example, I’d love to know why police put so much resources into vice. But that’s their prerogative and they are accountable to local voters for that. It could very well be that Maricopa voters consider the problems of illegal immigration and the associated ills(identity theft, unlicensed drivers, human trafficking, etc.) to be Maricopa’s biggest problem. Otherwise Arpaio wouldn’t keep winning.