Legality of the new Arizona Immigration Law

[DrDeth]

@ElvisL1ves

You can’t honestly or usefully isolate the topic from its context. The law doesn’t exist in hermetic abstraction in which legality can be established purely and objectively. It’s just a tool to serve justice, nothing more. What the effects of this law in the real world may be is precisely why it was written and enacted, and what all the other fuss is about too.

By his trying to keep this in the arid, airless world of Socratic word-parsing, I say Bricker is the one here most strenuously avoiding the topic.

Indeed not only can they, but SCOTUS often does do exactly that. Now as Bricker did say, this law might have Constitutional issues. It might not be a legal law.

So, he has stayed exactly on target. As to the “rightness” of the law, it does seem to be heavily favored by it’s electorate. sigh.

Any law can be abused by a bad cop. I have heard tales of local cops abusing DUI and other drunk laws. In fact, the SJPD has been castigated by the Press for “abusing” the public drunkeness laws- and we have a top-notch police force, mind you. So, yes, this law can be abused. I do agree that it *seems possibly *open to more abuse than other laws. However, again, Bricker has covered this fairly and quite well, I think.

But as to whether or not it WILL BE abused a lot, (and not just on a few rare occassions by bad cops) - well that goes out of the OP and even out of GD. That is pure speculation.

[ElvisL1ves]

@DrDeth

Indeed not only can they, but SCOTUS often does do exactly that.

I know they do, but it isn’t honest from them, either.

Now as Bricker did say, this law might have Constitutional issues. It might not be a legal law.

He has mentioned that in passing, but only to get on with the business of advocacy in the guise of analysis.

Any law can be abused by a bad cop.

Sure, and this law gives them an excuse to, and lowers the bar for good cops to act badly, too.

However, again, Bricker has covered this fairly and quite well, I think.

Only by retreating back inside the bubble and observing that it could be illegal. That utterly ignores context, once again.

But as to whether or not it WILL BE abused a lot, (and not just on a few rare occassions by bad cops) - well that goes out of the OP and even out of GD. That is pure speculation.

Come on now. Why the hell do you think this thing was written and passed?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The term “objectively reasonable” is a legal term and seems unremarkable to me in this context.

And its definition is based on what? :dubious:

Right, it’s what a reasonable person in similar circumstances would do. It is based on that messy old real world. IOW, the term you find “unremarkable” is circular obfuscation.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ElvisL1ves

And its definition is based on what? :dubious:

Right, it’s what a reasonable person in similar circumstances would do. IOW, circular obfuscation.

While I disagree with your premise (i.e., that it’s circular obfuscation–see this article for specifics), it’s nonetheless a term of art in the law. If you’re discussing the legality of a specific law, it makes sense to do so using legal terms of art. Objecting to this term is a much bigger objection; it’s as if supporters of the law were arguing against the concept of borders.

[gonzomax]

The idea that Arizona is in the midst of a crime wave perpetrated by illegal Mexicans is bogus. The Arizona violent crime rate is at its lowest since 1971. The property crime rate is the lowest since 1966.

[Cisco]

@gonzomax

The idea that Arizona is in the midst of a crime wave perpetrated by illegal Mexicans is bogus. The Arizona violent crime rate is at its lowest since 1971. The property crime rate is the lowest since 1966.

What is your source for these figures?