Legality of the new Arizona Immigration Law

[Bricker]

@E-Sabbath

Not that it matters, but it looks like we have a potential test case.
The new birthers: Arizona truck driver arrested, forced to show birth certificate - The Colorado Independent
Trucking is interstate commerce, generally. Any thoughts on how this might affect things, considering? Cops, stopping interstate commerce, to perform immigration checks.

1. This happened before the bill was even signed.
2. This involved federal agents, not state law enforcement.

But yeah, other than that, an excellent test case.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Their residency status is none of your business. How about that?

is it anyone’s business?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

So, your argument is, “I know this law will be enforced in a racist manner.”

“How?”

“Because that’s what’s happened before!”

Doesn’t seem to leave any room for the claim that lessons from the past will be incorporated into this law’s guidelines to avoid those pitfalls, does it?

Well, it’ not like it’s some distant past we’re talking about. It’s this exact same sheriff and sheriff’s department that has long engaged in openly racist harrassment of American citizens.

Besides, there is no other way to enforce the law but in a racist manner. The only thing that would trigger this bullshit “reasonable suspicion” about residency status is ethnicity, and that means citizens with brown skin have to carry birth certificates or passports or be arrested. It imposes conditions for living and travel on Hispanics (or people that any given cracker sheriff’s deputy thinks might look Hispanic) that is not imposed on white people. You know as well as I do that people of light skin will never be subject to “reasonable suspicion.”

I think there are some Arizona Diamondback players who are going to have to be careful.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

is it anyone’s business?

INS, maybe. Not the state of Arizona’s.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

It depends.

In our current climate, I’d say the preference is for the law to lay out general standards, and judicial decision to refine them to comport with the ever-changing, living Constitution.

In this case, the law lays out no standards at all.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

INS, maybe. Not the state of Arizona’s.

First of all: ICE, not INS. Get with the millenium, buddy.

More to the point: why not the state of Arizona? Don’t Arizona law enforcement officials have the inherent authority to investigate federal immigration violations?

In US v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1984), Lt. Furbeck, a Kansas state trooper, stopped a car for traffic violations and then detained the car while he inquired into the immigration status of the occupants. The driver was ultimately convicted of knowingly transporting illegal aliens contrary to 8 USC § 1324(a)(2). He appealed, arguing that the state trooper had no authority to detain him to investigate immigration matters. But the court disagreed:

@The Court

What are the objective facts by which Lt. Furbeck’s actions should be tested? Appellee’s counsel concedes in his brief that Lt. Furbeck’s initial stopping of the car was lawful.3 Lt. Furbeck found he could not converse with the driver of the vehicle, Salinas, because of the language barrier. From the woman who was seated beside Salinas in the cab of the pickup, Lt. Furbeck learned that Salinas was from Mexico, that he had no driver’s license or green card, and that they were en route from Colorado to Florida. Further, Lt. Furbeck observed six adult males in the bed of the pickup under an aluminum camper shell. He was also unable to converse with any of these six passengers because of the language barrier. However, he learned from Mrs. Salinas that the six passengers were also from Mexico and that none had identification papers or green cards. Applying the objective probable cause test to these facts, it is our view Lt. Furbeck had probable cause to make a warrantless arrest for violation of the immigration laws at this point in time.
.
.
.
Appellee argues that the state trooper did not have the authority to detain the passengers while he inquired into federal immigration matters, and further, his question about the defendant’s green card was based on a mere hunch. These arguments are without merit. A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper’s question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful. Terry, 392 U.S. at 19, 88 S.Ct. at 1878-79; United States v. Saldana, 453 F.2d 352 (10th Cir.1972)

Is there something about that decision that you believe will be unpersuasive in the neighboring Ninth Circuit? Do you believe that Arizona could not pass the law it did, but Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Nebraska, Wyoming, and New Mexico could?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In this case, the law lays out no standards at all.

Yes, but since Terry already establishes standards, why does the new law need to go beyond that?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Terry establishes standards of reasonable suspicion that a suspect is about to commit a crime.

This is not in any way analogous to determining whether a suspect is a legal resident of the United States, unless you think “standing outside a Home Depot while Hispanic” constitutes reasonable suspicion.

[Bricker]

Terry establishes standards of reasonable suspicion that a suspect is about to commit a crime.

This is not in any way analogous to determining whether a suspect is a legal resident of the United States, unless you think “standing outside a Home Depot while Hispanic” constitutes reasonable suspicion.

And where do you get the idea that “standing outside a Home Depot while Hispanic” would serve as the basis for investigation under this law?

[ElvisL1ves]

Human nature in general, Sheriff Arpaio’s history in particular.

Now where do *you *get the idea that it wouldn’t be used as such a basis? :dubious:

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

As I said in the Pit thread on this subject, I suppose the federal preemption argument might fly, but I doubt it, especially in view of the fact that at least two federal cirvuits have found that local law enforcement officers have “inherent authority” to enforce federal law.

But are they doing this in this case, or are they now enforcing a state law that differs from the federal law?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

And where do you get the idea that “standing outside a Home Depot while Hispanic” would serve as the basis for investigation under this law?

Where do you get the idea that it wouldn’t? I’m fairly certain that the law will be scrapped once it gets challenged, but until then, I’m also fairly certain that a bunch of innocent people will get fucked over.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

First of all: ICE, not INS. Get with the millenium, buddy.

More to the point: why not the state of Arizona?

Because the Supreme Court says so. States do not have any jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws. It’s none of their business.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

And where do you get the idea that “standing outside a Home Depot while Hispanic” would serve as the basis for investigation under this law?

Article 8, section 2. All that’s required is that a police officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the US illegally. It does not require that this suspicion be in conjunction with any other suspicion or contact.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

And where do you get the idea that “standing outside a Home Depot while Hispanic” would serve as the basis for investigation under this law?

Because it’s up to the officer’s discretion?

[DanBlather]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Because the Supreme Court says so. States do not have any jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws. It’s none of their business.

It’s a stupid law, but I don’t see the unconstitutionality. They are handing people over to the Feds, not prosecuting them. They have added no restrictions on who is or is not here illegally. You might as well say that state and local polices should ignore kidnappers because it is a federal offense.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

They can do that if a person is arrested for something else, but they cannot engage in per se investigations of residency status absent any other suspicion. This law allows them to start grabbing Hispanic looking citizens will nilly and demanding to see their birth certificates. If they don’t happen to be carrying their birth certificates, they can (and will) be arrested and detained.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Because the Supreme Court says so. States do not have any jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws. It’s none of their business.

Great. And where did the Supreme Court say this?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Article 8, section 2. All that’s required is that a police officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the US illegally. It does not require that this suspicion be in conjunction with any other suspicion or contact.

Yes, it does:

@SB 1070

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

Lawful contact is a prerequisite. Did you miss those words?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

“Lawful contact” doesn’t have to be anything but “hello.”