That makes you feel so proud and hopeful, doesn’t it?
A coupla questions: How Mexican do you look, and are you planning any trips to Arizona in the near future?
We shall see who see, not who is more energized to parse the polls, but who is more energized to participate at the polls.
Remember who it is that is more against the law than anybody and the weight their swing votes could have in November.
Whoever they (either Arizona LEO or Federal ICE agents) have “Legal Contact” with (which I understand as in the course of their official law enforcement duties), and who has somehow established “reasonable doubt” about the resident status of the interviewee.
The Immigration laws, in their entirety, apply to every foreign national wishing entry and/or residence in the U.S. Not just parts of it.
The reason they are “illegal” is because they did not utilise any one of the several options provided by the law for legal entry/residence.
Saying that they are immune from the law because they broke it doesn’t make sense to me.
Arizona is not enforcing Green Cards at the border, so why are you talking about that?
Ok…
I understand the concern. I hope you believe me in that.
But again I would like to point out that U.S. citizens have (by and large) already accepted the right of law enforcement to establish the indentity of people stopped (via the “Terry Stop” laws) they may have official dealings with. If, in the course of those duties, they establish “reasonable doubt” about the immigration status, they were required (by AB1070) to communicate that info with ICE.
Arizona may not use ethnicity for “reasonable doubt”:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm
The only difference between what Colorado did in my earlier post, and what Arizona was going to do was to make that cooperation/communication mandatory.
Are you upset with what Colorado did in my link above?
All right. I thought we discussing AB1070. Arizona doesn’t man the border stations. ICE and Border Patrol do, so the presense or absense of 1070 doesn’t matter on the border.
My thought was that ICE, in the Interior, checks green cards, passports, etc, in conducting their investigations of persons who come to their attention. If that is the method the Feds use, then it should suffice for Arizona too, should it not?
Suspect was the word I used for someone being interviewed during actions that fall under the “Terry Stop” guidlines, as well as those that invoke Miranda rules to kick in.
Sorry if it’s not the right one.
You stated, in the very last paragraph of post #138, the exact opposite: "The feds have given states specific statutory permission to turn over known illegal residents to ICE if they are arrested for something else. "
Isn’t that a new reality show on Fox?
Or maybe CBS will do Survivor, Arizona: We stranded 16 Mexican looking individuals in Arizona. Each week, one will be deported to Mexico. Who will be the sole Survivor?
Arizona Bill 1070 states:
Bolding mine. It’s accepting a driver’s license as proof, for example.
Do you feel it is unconstitutional to require proof of citizenship (or legal residency) to obtain a drivers license?
Your quote actually says “solely” so it can be used, just not as the only reason.
Honest question for the purpose of fighting my own ignorance.
Suppose the police pick up a man for vagrancy. He has no ID and speaks in heavily accented English giving only that his name is Juan Carlos. Beyond this he refuses to answer any other questions.
Can he be deported? There is no proof that he is in the US illegally. If he can be deported where would he be deported to? He could be from Mexico, but he could also be from Guatemala.
Anyone know how this would work?
Many states (such as Maryland where I live), don’t require proof of citizenship to get a drivers license, (I guess they are more worried about unlicensed drivers than illegal immigrants.) Am I required to bring their passport in order to enter Arizona? Perhaps Arizona needs some more border fences to the North, East and West as well as to the South.
The popularity of the law is an interesting dynamic. I feel in some ways it would have been in the interest of groups opposed to see the law enacted. The law remains popular to many that don’t understand what’s going on. It’s sold as this magical solution that will solve all AZ’s immigration problems. When in reality all the same problems will exist only more innocent people will get caught up in draconian measures.
As it’s yet to be enacted people are only informed of the positives it is said to bring. Without the law being applied only those who are very well informed get much of an idea the negatives it could bring in as well. The rest of the country will never get the concept until they see stories of random tourists imprisoned a week because they lost their wallet.
I like the first idea better: “Running Man: Arizona”. A bunch of Hispanic-American Republican lawyers are dressed in shabby work clothes without their ID’s and are released into the desert. They get a few minutes head start on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies, just to make sure the game isn’t over too soon, and the last competitor to be cuffed gets a prize.
In regards to this OP, Arizona would turn him over to ICE for final determination of his disposition.
Lacking anything else, I doubt ICE would deport him. They would eventually release him. IMO.
Yes. But that is not one the argument(s) presented in this thread, as I understand it.
Folks have posted that they think Arizona is going to harass people solely for being brown. Notice ElvisL1ves question to Bricker, and the thrust of John Mace’s joke.
The argument has been made that they’ll create a reason just so they can move ahead with the race part of it, maybe not here but in most discussions of this type.
I can’t answer that right now in a factual manner, because I don’t see that addressed in the text of the Bill. It needs to be addressed. I wonder if a sucessful challenge can be based on that?
On a practical level, I am guessing that the regular traffic cop is not going to know which states do not require proof of citizenship to obtain, and he is just going to accept your Maryland DL as proof.
That is precisely the purpose of the law.
Yeah can’t be the ‘sole reason’ but if they were brown and were heard speaking in Spanish that is two reasons.
IMO: Still all part of one reason, not two. “Race, Color, national origin, etc., to the extent permitted (or not) by the US Constitution.”
Brinker can probably address this better than my “gut”. 
If it can be used as any part of the reason, it will be used as the sole reason. Can you name another reason besides ethnicity to suspect that a person is in the country illegally?
Even though the law says the exact opposite?
Why do they even bother?
If you assume the police aren’t going to follow their own law, why not assert that they are just gonna arrest whoever they feel like, take them out into the desert, and shoot them in the face?
“He pulled a knife, your Honor.”
I think it would be more accurate to say that they did not protest the searches. They did what the cops ordered them to do. And the reasons were not given, but deduced. In the Colorado case, Younger Son filled that in when Middle Son complained. Apparently there were a lot of drugs being brought into the area by people driving California rental cars and the cops had started pulling them over.