I Hate to Say I Told You So, But…
I told you so. I told you Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law was unconstitutional. A federal judge ruled that the most controversial portions of the law just don’t cut it.
Judge Susan Bolton ruled the law runs afoul of the principle that the federal government has supreme authority when it comes to most immigration matters.
The following provisions were ruled unconstitutional…
- Officers check a person’s immigration status during a lawful arrest.
- Immigrants must carry proof that they are here legally.
- Immigrants cannot solicit work in public places.
- Warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
The judge did rule in favor of a provision that would crack down on “sanctuary cities”. This ruling also puts other state and local jurisdictions on notice who would want to pass on anti-illegal immigration laws.
I could go on, but I think I’ve said enough. And yes, I know this will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and later to the U.S. Supreme Court. So would you like me to tell you I told you now, or wait until the rulings come back.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
The way Arizona needs to handle illegal immigrants is simple:
#1: Crime–refer all crimes where the suspect is an illegal to the US Department of Justice.
#2: Healthcare–All illegal immigrants who are in need of health care should, at a time when they are stable, be transported to the nearest VA or active duty military hospital. Put them in the ambulance, take them to the nearest federal government operated hospital, and leave them.
The federal government wants to deal with illegals, so the states need to force them to deal with the issue. The states shouldn't be forced to spend their own money to arrest, investigate, and incarcerate illegals since they fall under the umbrella of the US Federal Government. Likewise, the states shouldn't be forced to spend their own money to provide healthcare services, outside of emergency care to stabilize someone, for illegals since again, they fall under the umbrella of the US Federal Government.
So states with the illegal problem should just stop dealing with illegals and tell their citizens to complain to their federal government representatives and the US DOJ. If crime goes up because the FBI refuses to arrest illegals, the states should allow their citizens easy access to firearms, and the ability to carry them while out and about in public, so they can defend themselves.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
It will be appealed and will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Bolton is an activist, Clinton-appointee hack who ruled based on her presumption that profiling would occur. According to Bolton, if a Muslim terrorist slips across the Mexican border, Arizona police have no right to ask from what country he came. Liberals should be happy as hell today that another liberal, activist judge has made us less safe.
The SCOTUS will rule that the Arizona law doesn't 'run afoul' of the federal law (it actually mirrors it)and the conflict only pertains to enforcement of a law already on the books.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Arizona created a lazy law. For arguement sake's lets say it doesn't conflict with Federal law.
There is no way right now for the law to be implemented without racial profiling.
Simple solution for Arizona –
1. Require everyone to carry a state id/ drivers license over the age of 18.
2. Require police to ask everyone about their legal status. Kill this resonable suspicion (racial profiling) B.S. part of the law.
Rico – if the law just mirrors the Federal law then why have it in the first place
July 29th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Nomore, from whom do you think hospitals get reimbursed, at whatever rate, for indigant care now? (Indigant, regardless of nationality, American citizen or not)?
It's mostly federal money, pal.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
It was a lazily-written law. But it sufficiently panders to the far right, which their governor loves.
Rico may be right–this SCOTUS may overturn, if it goes that far (it probably will). Roberts is performing just one hair better than Clarence Thomas, which is to say, he has a pulse.
Bolton is an activist judge. Rico, you're hilarious.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
And unanimously approved by a Republican controlled Senate and recommended by Kyl, Arizona Republican Senator.
And as for the mirroring, I'll post what I put on Abdul's Facebook discussion:
It is a misdemeanor (or more precise, a US Code violation) to be here illegally. It is NOT a federal crime. You can not be prosecuted, you can't be sentenced to jail time. You CAN …be deported.
Arizona has made a US Code violation (federally enforced, not state enforced) into a criminal act that can be prosecuted and include jail time. And to top it all off, they can't even deport someone themselves. Arizona is literally being the middle man in all this.
And that's ignoring the whole concept of everyone must have documentation on them at all times. This law seems to presume guilt rather than innocence.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Rico,
You are perhaps right. It may be overturned by the Supreme Court, but, if they actually are interpreting the law rather than being judicial activists, the ruling will be upheld because it was correct.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Okay, TA, have it your way. She's just a bad judge. She improperly invoked a case from 1941 (Hines vs Davidowitz) in her ruling. Hines was directed at 'law-abiding aliens'. The Arizona law specifically addresses aliens who had broken the law and were subsequently checked for their immigration status. She also completely ignored newer rulings that addressed the impact of illegal immigration on individual states.
Your president has managed to divide this nation even further. Americans are angry. Our economy is in the toilet and our illegal immigration problem is costing us billions each year. Barry even halted the wall from being built. His next move: Amnesty. Then, we will have a revolution on our hands!
July 29th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Lets just be honest here. Most of the illegals coming here don't have much, if any, wealth. Most will likely end up on various forms of welfare, which are ideals strongly pushed by the Democrat party. Listen to some Democrats and there isn't such a thing as a tax ceiling if it means more handouts for layabouts, bums, girls who can't stop popping out kid after kid with no way to pay for them, those who harm their own health, then want us to pay for the fix, etc. etc. etc..
The Democrats know damn well the best way to direct this country into a socialist mecca is to add another ten plus million to the welfare rolls and then give them the right to vote. Like any significant number of these people will vote for less taxation on others when they are benefiting from said taxation.
I find it odd we can't ask someone if they are an American citizen, but yet a person who is lawfully detained in the State of Nevada can't refuse to give an officer their name, unless they want to be charged with a crime. I didn't say papers, or ID, or driver's license, just the mere fact you don't provide a name is illegal in Nevada.
Civil unrest is coming. I see no reason why any decent young person would raise their kids to “do the right things” in life. Let them get knocked up at 15 or 16, then vote in radical socialists who will tax incomes another 10-20%, so that your kid can get even more government handouts. Tax rates are going to have to be so high to supplement another 10+ million on the welfare rolls, that only suckers will work hard, get an education, and a mid-to-upper level paying jobs (anything over $55K/year, if not less). Eventually more and more of this countries younger folks will say “Screw it!” and join the culture which champions out-of-wedlock teenage births, living on welfare from cradle-to-the-grave, engaging in unlawful and/or immoral conduct because 'Its my right because I am …….', etc. etc.. Then when there is finally no more money to steal, because there are so few productive people in this nation, all hell breaks loose.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Big pix/long term: If you have limited money for benefits (what country doesn't), a phobia about profiling (we're the poster child), & are a repeated target for violent extremists (maybe only behind the Middle East?)- how do you avoid carrying around documentation to prove your legitimacy in physical access or benefits receipt?
The courts can also rule that sugar cream pie needs to be adopted nationally. What does that have to do with the current economic and security realities of America?
July 29th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Under Federalism, each state is to be considered their own nation. This ruling doesn't change much because Arizona can move forward under state sovereignty and tell the Feds to back down. This ruling will further move the people to take the “law in their own hands” which will in turn, create more vigilance and street justice towards those who are here as illegal aliens and the tragic side effect will be that it will hurt those who are here legally.
The Federal Government continues to ignore their own laws while claiming that the Constitution doesn't exist, but then it exists when rulings favor their ends. I sense the next stage in America will be succession of states which could usher in Civil War.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Our president is governing despite the hateful and lousy governing being done by the Boehner-McConnell crowd.
Get over it already. I put up with pres. Bush for eight miserbale years…our Constitution was trashed, the Justice Dept. became a playground for Liberty Law grads, and we were unjustifiably thrust into two wars from which there is no return.
Oh yeah–hang onto that Hines cite. You're going to need it. This judge did her best with a lousy law.
It's almost Aug.1: there are, to date over 39 federal appointees awaiting Senate action, held up by personal holds placed by recalcitrant Republican senators. Combined with the legislative measures stalled by the Republicans, it's over 75 issues held up by this obstructionist nonsense. A record, by the way.
Hines indeed.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
“Supreme authority” is a demonstrable matter of enforcement, not abdication; the tacit admission of the fudge's ruling.
When the burden of proof is placed disproportionately on law abiding citizens to the advantage of lawbreakers; that ain't civilized, it's lawless.
Let's consider that which is alleged to be “unconstitutional.”
? Officers check a person’s immigration status during a lawful arrest.
Residency is relevant to noticing, etc. Where you live (vs. visit) is relevant.
? Immigrants must carry proof that they are here legally.
Law requires an enforcement mechansim (proof, ID).
? Immigrants cannot solicit work in public places.
Here in Indy it might be considered panhandling.
? Warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
The word “suspected” would seem to imply probable cause.
Then again, considering the “precedent setting,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar; Governor Brewer could just blow off anything said by a federal judge, just for fun.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Sorry, those facts are inconvenient things sometimes.
So, let me get this straight, to deal with a 'lousy law', a justice uses a precedent that doesn't apply, and that's okay with you? No wonder you support Kagan. She doesn't give a damn about the rule of law either.
I won't get over it. And true Americans will not sit by while your president trashes this country. And if the GOP can stop radical extremists from being appointed, then more power to them. What's hilarious is that your Party has the Whitehouse, and both houses of Congress and you still blame the GOP for being obstructionists. Well, I guess it is the Obama era where it's cool to blame someone else for everything.
You say you aren't a liberal, yet you're an apologist for a Party that is pushing the most liberal, radically-leftist agenda in this nation's history. Either way, you're a bitterly-partisan hack who hasn't a clue what's best for this country.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
By the way, your man's really do a great job of 'governing' on The View. What a joke of a president! Our 'Mongrel-in Chief' is an embarrassment! ('Mongrel' is Barry's word–quite revealing as to what he really thinks about some Americans.)
July 29th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Is this really the common belief out there? Has our opinion of law enforcement sunk to such an unbelievably low level that everybody just assumes because a law is written in such a way that they are all going to racially profile? There are dozens of ways to determine whether or not someone is here legally or not and “racially profiling” isn't even one of them. If you don't like the law on it's merits, that's fine. But don't resort to the “police run afoul because now they can” defense. The people who keep you safe at night deserve at a minimum that much.
Oh, and no, finding that ONE case that everybody's been looking for for several years since Sheriff Joe started cracking down on immigration (but haven't found) isn't going to prove your point.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
I guess we'll just have to resort to street-corner booths with signs that read 'Illegal immigrants with guilty consciences turn yourself in here.'
Yeah, that'll work.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
I think this is the first crime I've ever heard of that the police can't enforce because the courts forbid it.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:29 am
I wish he hadn't used that word–I saw it, and it applied to our mixed racial melting pot here in America. How is it that I sense you mean something different?
You really think Hines doesn't apply? Read it again. Activist judges. Kinda like Bush v Gore, huh? Rule of law, indeed…
I have a clue pal. Get used to it.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:29 am
That is not what's said here, AT ALL.
July 30th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Ash,
It is my belief, whether it is common or not I will let you decide that by your own research.
Sorry but the law lends itself to racial profiling.
What makes someone reasonable suspicious of being a illegal?? I haven't heard an answer to that one yet. Give me a list of 10 things and the person has to meet at least 6 of them. But as of today I haven't read any guidelines for the police to follow when considering someone reasonable suspicious.
Being Black I am reasonable suspicious of alot of things when it comes to cops.
July 30th, 2010 at 4:30 am
What a horrible thing for your president to say–just like the Special Olympics joke.
What he says off teleprompter is quite revealing.
And I have read Hines. (Something tells me you're far too lazy to have done the same.) Bad decision. Idiot judge. Period.
As far as Bush v the alleged molester: Get a clue and then get used to it.
July 30th, 2010 at 6:06 am
1) carrying an expired Visa
2) carrying a false/forged consular ID card
3) carrying a homemade illegitimate ID card
4) carrying a false/forged government ID card
5) admitting (*gasp*) that you did not follow immigration protocol before entering the country
6) inconsistencies in someone's story as to where they are from and where they are going
7) stating that you are visiting the US but not carrying a passport. Before you say this is Nazi Germany-esque, I would remind you in the rest of the developed world we are required to carry passports when travelling.
8) being unable to verbally provide a social security # upon request.
That's 8 off the top of my head. Let me know if you need more. If you truly believe that, do you also believe that the majority of America that's behind enforcing immigration laws believes in racially profiling, or are you saying that they aren't intelligent enough to realize it for what it is?
Bigotry comes in lots of shapes and sizes. You can be reasonably suspicious all you like, but the statistics suggest you've never met 99.9999% of the law enforcement officials in this country. Extrapolating a negative experience onto everybody else doesn't make sense. Cops generally know their job better than non-Cops, just like accountants tend to know accounting better than everybody else. Don't believe the hype.
July 30th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Ummm…the word is “indigent” not “indigant” which is not a word. Ok genius, now go back to telling us how dumb republicans are.
July 30th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Ash -
I didn't have to meet 99.99999% of the law enforcement officials in the country to determine racial profiling exist. There are studies for that. I agree bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes and there isn't some invisible shield around law enforcement officials and this is not to demonize law enforcement officials, but I think if you were part of demographics that was constantly being profiled you might have a different point of view on the subject.
Back to implementing the law. It is the presumption of guilt. How does a officer determine when he ask for such information?
Is that information required by law to be carried around at all times?
If I am walking and a cop pulls me over for jay walking how does that cop determine whether I am reasonable suspicious of being a illegal alien??
July 30th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
“ruled unconstitutional… Officers check a person’s immigration status during a lawful arrest”
Driver license may be suspended – OK to check
Person may have outstanding warrants – OK to check
Person might have dialated pupils from illegal drugs – OK to check
Person matches description of robbery suspect – OK to check
Person may have unpaid parking tickets – OK to check
Person might have illegally entered the country – Oh no, can't check on that!
July 30th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Like the “ongoing” study in Illinois to prove racial profiling that's been extended for the past 10 years because the sociologists still haven't proven their hypothesis? Are we disregarding the studies that have concluded cops take stricter measures against those of their own race than they do those of other races?
An Officer can always ask. That's irrelevant. So are you suggesting that the perception out there is that most illegal immigrants are Hispanic so the law would unjustly affect Hispanics? In Arizona yes that would be true but you're putting the cart before the horse. Could we extend the argument and say immigration laws unjustly are applied to immigrants? I guess you could also argue this law would be illegal, more specifically not fair, because American citizens would be precluded from it's enforcement?
If you're pulled over for jaywalking and you produce a valid IN ID card or Driver's license, there you go. If you don't have it with you, you are required to provide information by law when you commit an infraction, so you could also be confirmed verbally through various computer databases. Hope this helps..
July 30th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I don't by law have to have a valid ID card at least as far as I know. I might be wrong you can correct me on that.
You are ducking the point. What gives the officer reasonable suspicion to ask the question? To me this is where the racial profiling comes into play. So that isn't irrelevant.
Jaywalking doesn't make me reasonable suspicious of shooting someone, or robbing a bank.
The officer being called to my house because of a bogus noise complaint also doesn't require any id. Once again how does the officer decide who is reasonable suspicious
If you want to argue the facts of racial profiling go head and argue to your blue in the face, but there is a reason why it is a issue. It wasn't create out of thin air.
July 30th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
You are required by law to carry ID and/or provide identifying information if you are stopped by the police for an infraction or city ordinance violation. It is a crime in the state of Indiana as well as many other states in the country. Oddly enough, it's not in the event of a commission of a separate crime, but in that case you can be held as a John Doe indefinitely.
The police have NEVER needed reasonable suspicion to ask questions. I answered YOUR question above, however. Jaywalking doesn't make you reasonably suspicious of shooting somebody, it makes you reasonably suspicious of jaywalking. Not sure I follow your point on this one. Are you saying that it should be illegal for police to ask certain questions in the course of ANY investigation (assuming jaywalking as a 'bottom of the bucket' offense) under any circumstances?
The officer who doesn't try to identify who he's talking to when he's called to somebody's house on a noise complaint is unable to confirm who lives there. Bad day for you if it's in fact a burglar (which has happened before, whoops.) I think you're looking at this as a concrete issue when in fact it's not really like that.
If this law would lead to racial profiling, why hasn't there been a hue and cry over the federal law, which is much more stringent? Sheriff Joe has been running immigration checks for several years now and despite a multitude of DoJ investigations they haven't found any profiling yet. The law in fact explicitily forbids racial profiling, nevertheless this notion that the only thing keeping our law enforcement from acting like a bunch of racist rednecks is a very carefully worded set of bylaws (as if you can teach ethics to a grown individual) is foolish. The police patrolling your streets today are not the same ones that were around in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. My generation (assuming I'm younger than you), is largely post-racial. We see people playing the race card ad infinitum and have the audacity to ask “where?”
Sociology as a science is as soft as an insulin-filled boob implant. It's going to take a little bit more substance for people to believe that this law is going to lead to profiling and the federal law won't.
For Pete's sake, when the state has to cede hundreds of square miles of land and warn their citizens not to pass into it because they can't guarantee their safety, what are you supposed to do? Not only has the federal government failed to do it's job for the past 20 years, now they're going to so far as to prevent anybody else from doing it for them. And the best they can do is play the race card. Oy.
July 31st, 2010 at 5:04 am
Abdul, like many in the media, sets up a straw man to debate with and then proclaims victory over the straw man.
It has been asserted that (1) Arizona is setting up an independent immigration policy; and that, (2) Arizona is setting up a system of racial profiling.
The fact is that (1) Arizona and other states have cooperated with the federal government for years to arrest illegal aliens. Also, (2) Arizona follows well established police procedures. Arizona will continue to arrest illegal aliens.
The controversial aspect of the Arizona law is that Arizona made it mandatory for its police to enforce the immigration law. This is the part of the law that the federal judge has granted a temporary injunction against.
July 31st, 2010 at 6:39 pm
as a angry white woman, all i can say is what is so hard to undertand about the word illegal. Simple idea, simple meaning. I 've kept that old Webster, just in case .
August 1st, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Cool we agree to disagree. I think it is a bad law and you don't. You don't think racial profiling exist, I think it does. I don't think the younger generation is as post racial as you think it is. I would guess you aren't that much younger than I.
P.S. The race card “term” was created and is currently used by white people. When we try to explain where it isn't easy for you guys to see it….
Have a good one
August 1st, 2010 at 8:31 pm
No, I know other than white people who use the term “race card.”
August 1st, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I meant to say used more by white people not exclusively.
August 1st, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Actually you are not required to have ID. What the courts have ruled is that asking you for your ID does not violate the 4th amendment.
August 1st, 2010 at 11:28 pm
The problem is that when this is discussed the word “illegal” quickly gets dropped and it becomes a race discussion with people making outrageous statements with no basis in fact. Just blind fear and hate.
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:06 pm
sorry ,dont understand blind fear and hate, and we all know it has nothing to do with race.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:32 am
I'm not saying that racial profiling doesn't exist. In fact there's no doubt in my mind that it does, but that under most all circumstances it can't be proven. Furthermore, if you can argue this law trends to profiling I think you can make that argument for almost any law. Also, in the grand scheme of things racial profiling is probably towards the bottom of the list of problems the inner-city community is dealing with. The DoJ has been in Maricopa County for a year and a half since Sheriff Joe said he was going to start enforcing immigration laws and turning illegals over to ICE and THEY still haven't found any proof of racial profiling.
If I had grown up the way you did I would probably look at things the way you do. I think we all try to look at things objectively but I'm probably right in guessing we come from two different perspectives. No worries. Good talk.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I'm with you that it has nothing to do with race in the cost, security, and lawbreaking aspect. Except for the language issue, I contend it would be just as ludicrous if we were illegally overrun by white people. Ironically, it would be fully pursued if we were overflowing with cheaper attorneys and medical assistants from across the border. It's not race or country or color of skin, it's the benefits cost to non-citizens as resources are dwindling, the security when it's proven you'd rather be bombed and be politically correct, and the lack of law enforcement (hiring and border) to protect citizenry in regards to cost and security.
That being said, I listened to an array of talk radio on a trip back, and there is fear and hate from both sides that needs to disappear. It's 2010. There are plenty of things to be done based on the facts around the issues themselves.
If you (anybody reading) have an opinion that a certain, complete, and entire race, religion, gender, or country is lazy, corrupt, parasitic, or whatever- I wish you'd keep it to yourself so the rest of us can move forward. I haven't seen an evil yet that encompasses ALL white, black, brown, Christian, Jew, or Islamic, United States, Mexico, or Iranian people.
August 4th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Taxpayer, i couldn't agree more with your last statement. I have to say I was at a south side family oriented establishment. There were white, black, hispanic, and asian children all playing together. I pray they never learn to see “just” the color , and always just see a friend. I never understood how one could look at any child and see anything more than a gift from GOD. more confused than angry today.