Judge blocks Arizona "show me your papers" law

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Is there any practical difference between “lawful contact” and “lawful stop?” I submit that the answer is no. The cops can use virtually any pretense to stop somebody.

A lawful stop implicates the Fourth Amendment. A lawful contact does not. So the difference is: a lawful contact required no suspicion of any crime, but a lawful stop does.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@athelas

So Arizona is not allowed to enforce federal laws that are being ignored

What federal laws are being ignored? Cite? I know that’s the right wing line, but it’s bullshit.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Hines v. Davidowitz that states cannot require immigrants to carry documentation, so that’s a slam dunk smackdown all by itself.

That’s not what that case says.

From your own cite:

Pennsylvania passed a statute requiring aliens to register with the state, carry a state-issued identification card, and pay a small registration fee. The next year, Congress enacted a law requiring alien registration, but it did not require aliens to carry an identification card.

The Court there decided that Pennsylvania could not require immigrants to carry documentation when the federal government did not impose such a requirement.

The question before us now is “Can the state require immigrants to carry documentation when the federal government ALSO requires them to carry documentation?”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@athelas

Wouldn’t it be a bitch if it Arizona decided to turn around and stop enforcing all state laws that were also covered by federal ones?

What laws would those be, and who gives a fuck if they do?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Hines v. Davidowitz that states cannot require immigrants to carry documentation, so that’s a slam dunk smackdown all by itself.

That’s not what that case says.

From your own cite:

Pennsylvania passed a statute requiring aliens to register with the state, carry a state-issued identification card, and pay a small registration fee. The next year, Congress enacted a law requiring alien registration, but it did not require aliens to carry an identification card.

The Court there decided that Pennsylvania could not require immigrants to carry documentation when the federal government did not impose such a requirement.

The question before us now is “Can the state require immigrants to carry documentation when the federal government ALSO requires them to carry documentation?”

The answer is still no. The states cannot add or subtract to federal law.

I notice you haven’t actually offered a response to the judge’s ruling today. Is she wrong?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@athelas

So Arizona is not allowed to enforce federal laws that are being ignored

What federal laws are being ignored? Cite? I know that’s the right wing line, but it’s bullshit.

Do you not read any posts in any of these threads?

8 USC § 1304(e)

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Cite that the feds are ignoring that law?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The answer is still no. The states cannot add or subtract to federal law.

So say you. But I believe you’re wrong.

I notice you haven’t actually offered a response to the judge’s ruling today. Is she wrong?

She hasn’t ruled on the merits. It’s probably wiser to err on the side of caution; they can always begin enforcing the law after the case is heard, but it’s harder to unravel arrests and deportations if you enforce it and then decide you should not have.

For what it’s worth, I have always said that the best chance of attacking this law is on preemption grounds, and this won’t be decided by a district court ruling, no matter which side she finally comes down on. As to the merits, I believe the correct analysis of preemption permits the Arizona law to continue, since it does not conflict with federal law at all.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cite that the feds are ignoring that law?

Give me an example of the kind of evidence that would convince you. For example, suppose I were to showthat no one had been convicted for violation of 1304(e) in ten years. Would that show “ignoring?”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The answer is still no. The states cannot add or subtract to federal law.

So say you. But I believe you’re wrong.

The United States Attorney General says I’m right.

I notice you haven’t actually offered a response to the judge’s ruling today. Is she wrong?

She hasn’t ruled on the merits. It’s probably wiser to err on the side of caution; they can always begin enforcing the law after the case is heard, but it’s harder to unravel arrests and deportations if you enforce it and then decide you should not have.

For what it’s worth, I have always said that the best chance of attacking this law is on preemption grounds, and this won’t be decided by a district court ruling, no matter which side she finally comes down on. As to the merits, I believe the correct analysis of preemption permits the Arizona law to continue, since it does not conflict with federal law at all.

Except for the part where the Constitution says the states have no jurisdiction over immigration law.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cite that the feds are ignoring that law?

Give me an example of the kind of evidence that would convince you. For example, suppose I were to showthat no one had been convicted for violation of 1304(e) in ten years. Would that show “ignoring?”

No. You would have to show that there is some kind of official policy instructing federal law enforcement not to enforce the law.

It’s also immaterial. The federal government is allowed to prioritize enforcement however it wants. It’s none of Arizona’s business.

[G-SE]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@Bricker

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cite that the feds are ignoring that law?

Give me an example of the kind of evidence that would convince you. For example, suppose I were to showthat no one had been convicted for violation of 1304(e) in ten years. Would that show “ignoring?”

No. You would have to show that there is some kind of official policy instructing federal law enforcement not to enforce the law.

It’s also immaterial. The federal government is allowed to prioritize enforcement however it wants. It’s none of Arizona’s business.

This may be very difficult for you to follow, so I’ll go slow.

The Federal Government is charged with protecting the border, which includes keeping illegal immigrants out.

The number of illegal immigrants continues to increase.

Is this considered:
A) Success
B) Failure

[descamisado]

@athelas

So Arizona is not allowed to enforce federal laws that are being ignored and unenforced due to unpopularity among the current ruling party.

@Bricker

For example, suppose I were to showthat no one had been convicted for violation of 1304(e) in ten years. Would that show “ignoring?”

I’m just curious, would that ten-year period cover any adminstrations prior to January 21, 2009?

[Unregistered_Bull]

Illegal immigration down - because of economy or border control?

Number of Illegal Immigrants to U.S. Is Down, Report Finds - washingtonpost.com

Deportation of illegal immigrants increases under Obama administration

Illegal immigration is actually down. And deportations are actually up.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@G-SE

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@Bricker

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cite that the feds are ignoring that law?

Give me an example of the kind of evidence that would convince you. For example, suppose I were to showthat no one had been convicted for violation of 1304(e) in ten years. Would that show “ignoring?”

No. You would have to show that there is some kind of official policy instructing federal law enforcement not to enforce the law.

It’s also immaterial. The federal government is allowed to prioritize enforcement however it wants. It’s none of Arizona’s business.

This may be very difficult for you to follow, so I’ll go slow.

The Federal Government is charged with protecting the border, which includes keeping illegal immigrants out.

The number of illegal immigrants continues to increase.

Is this considered:
A) Success
B) Failure

Your premise is false.

Illegal Immigrant Deportations Up Under Obama:

In a bid to remake the enforcement of federal immigration laws, the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants and auditing hundreds of businesses that blithely hire undocumented workers.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration’s 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

Does this sound like Obama is

a) enforcing immigration law or
b) ignoring immigration law

Don’t pop off at the mouth when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[G-SE]

@Unregistered_Bull

Illegal immigration down - because of economy or border control? - CSMonitor.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/02/ST2008100203040.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html

Illegal immigration is actually down. And deportations are actually up.

From your own cite:

Despite the slowdown, the number of illegal immigrants remains at an all-time high, up more than 40 percent from about 8.4 million in 2000 to 11.9 million in March

[Unregistered_Bull]

'But it’s slowing down. Which makes your claim absolutely false.

[G-SE]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Does this sound like Obama is

a) enforcing immigration law or
b) ignoring immigration law

I knew this would be a little over your head for you to understand without trying to put words in my mouth.

I never claimed anything about Obama. I never claimed he or the Federal government were not enforcing, or ignoring immigration law. Nor did I ever claim Bush was doing a better job.

My point was that to date, the Federal government has FAILED at keeping our borders secured. You can pretend the government is doing a great job, but millions of illegals currently in the country pretty much says it all.

[Kolga]

@Chronos

Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is?

Oh, that’s easy. If someone’s got white skin instead of brownish, or blond hair, then they’re almost certainly immigrants (or at least mostly descended from immigrants). Non-immigrants in this country all have brownish skin and black hair.

I just wanted to repeat this, to give it the attention and props it so deserves.

[Mr.Moto]

Pardon me, but you folks who are answering the 1304(e) question by pointing out the number of deportations seem to be a bit mistaken as the penalty for violating the 1304(e) section is the aforementioned $100 fine or thirty days.

Please try to stay on point.