"As Americans, we must stand up against this law. It's a travesty, and it's a moral outrage," said Elena Letona at a recent demonstration against Arizona's new illegal immigration law (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/25/arizona_immigration_law_draws_praise_outrage_in_boston/). Illegal immigration has been a hot button topic for decades and it appears now that Arizona is tired of it. Prior to the legislation being moved through Arizona's state Legislature a local rancher was killed by an illegal immigrant. The new law allows for police to ask for proof of citizenship to anyone they choose to ask. Governor Jan Brewer signed the legislation into law on Friday as Arizona continues to deal with approximately 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Alison Peek writer for the Salt Lake City Political Buzz Examiner wrote, "When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the toughest immigration law in the United States, she opened the door to profiling, discrimination and racism. It was one of the biggest steps backward this country has seen in more than 225 years." Really? I'd argue the health care mandate is a bigger step backwards. Why are we so scared to profile? If a police officer asks for proof of citizenship how does that translate into discrimination and racism? A process is established to enter the country in a legal way and states like Arizona has battled and been handcuffed in cracking down on illegal immigration until now. It is time to get tougher on illegal immigration. Right now the largest segment of the world's population entering into the United States is Latin America.
We are going to need immigration to replace our ranks as the baby boomers age. So, if people want to come into our country to live and work then just comply with the law of the land. If you enter the country illegally then you need to be deported back. The influx of illegal immigrants taxes our health care system, burdens our schools system, and creates additional concerns for our police. That being said isn't well within the right of Arizona to enact such a law to keep their legal citizens safe? The trouble with immigration to begin with is that politicians use it as means to garner votes. If the system is broken then fix it. Don't turn a blind eye to the issue or when States, like Arizona, pass law to crack down on illegal immigration do not call it racist or discriminatory. Of course it is discriminatory because it discriminates against illegal immigrants. While the focus on the Arizona law is on the ability of police to ask for proof of citizenship the law also cracks down on those that hire illegal immigrants.
What does an illegal alien look like? Or, stated another way, what would result in you being reasonably suspicious of a person's immigration status?
ReplyDeleteClark...What does a criminal look like? The bill gives Police in Arizona another tool to fight illegal immigration. If you are here legally then you have nothing to worry about.
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't whether profiling is justified or works, the question is whether it is constitutional. Which, it isn't.
ReplyDeleteNothing to worry about? That's a joke. Ask any African American who has been pulled over and harassed because they are black.
What is the constitutional question?
ReplyDelete4th Amendment and Equal protection. The law, targets people based on the color of their skin and treats all differently without any probable cause.
ReplyDeletePlease answer my question Ardent Viper. What does an illegal alien look like?
ReplyDeleteChris, I struggle with your position on this for one simple reason - it's contradictory to the position that you take everyplace else and that is one of smaller government.
ReplyDeleteYou position here seems to be one of expanded government when it suits you and doesn't infringe on YOUR rights but if another citizens rights are infringed upon that's ok.
Here's my issue here. YES,the borders need locked down. In my opinion, you put a physical fence on the border and landmines on the Mexican side of the fence. You thereby severely curtail the inflow if immigrants which gives you the ability to deal with those in the country illegally.
But to give police an ability to require citizenship papers from ANYONE they suspect of being an illegal is a breach fo the 4th amendment and their constitutional rights if they're a citizen. Furthermore, the constitution grants the power regarding immigration regulation to federal government, not state. This is an usurpation of that authority by the state.
This law will rightfully be thrown out.
I get the frustration, but windowdressing laws that accomplish nothing except infringing upon lawful citizens rights are not the answer. And it's more concerning that the so-called "small government" advocates are for this.
But then, this isn't the first hypocrisy I've pointed out by being in that faux-libertarian group.
Anon..the law targets illegal immigrants not a specific country of origin.
ReplyDeleteClark...there is no steadfast look of an illegal immigrant. An illegal immigrant is anyone that enters the united States that is not a citizen or has the proper visa to be here. Again what does a criminal look like?
Who mentioned country of origin? Not me. The police will be stopping Mexicans. Stops will be based solely on the color of skin. That's a violation of constitutional rights. That's Clark's point. The law may not be written like that, but that is how it will be applied.
ReplyDeleteThanks Ardent Viper. Next question. If there is no steadfast look of an illegal immigrant, what would or could create the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to inquire as to a person's citizenship status?
ReplyDeleteChris, the point that Anon/Clark are making is that citizens of the US will have their rights to freedom from unlawful search infringed by this new law. The 4th amendment guarantees that freedom and requires that the police have "probable cause". If that probable cause is simply a suspicion that the person is an illegal which impossible to define except by racial profiling then that is a breach of the 4th amendment.
ReplyDeleteAgain, how do you justify this stance when it flies in the face of your constitutional beliefs and belief in "smaller government"? Don't you see your stance as hypocritic?
To respond to Ardent Viper's question to Clark about what a criminal looks like, I'll say this: You don't know what a criminal looks like until he/she takes some sort of action that leads you to believe that he/she has just committed or is about to commit a criminal act. And color of skin is not such an action.
ReplyDeleteAnd even an act is not definitive proof of a person's guilt of them being a criminal. They are a suspect. Innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteThat's a big issue I have with this law actually. The fact that if a person CANNOT prove they are a citizen, they are arrested. That is guilt until proven innocent. How is that at all constitutional?
ReplyDeleteHell, I don't carry my birth certificate with me every day, nor my social security card. How the hell would I prove my citizenship? I guess I'd go to jail except for the fact that I look scandanavian in heritage which means they wouldn't question my citizenship. Funny how that works.
There is a police officer in a small AZ border town. The officer is standing in the middle of a 4 way intersection. There are four people standing at each corner the officer has never seen before and has had no prior contact with. They look identical in dress, build, weight and height. None appears to be engaging in illegal activity. Three are white and one looks Mexican. The officer knows one is an illegal immigrant but doesn’t know which one. He can only stop one person. Who gets stopped?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can honestly answer anyone other than the one who looks Mexican.
The law does not allow for the police officer to randomaly pull people over or confront them on the street; rather the law allows the officer to ask for proof of citizenship as part of their activities when stopping someone.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the ability of the officer to ask the question is not an expansion of government so I do not see the hyprocratic stance that Kevin asserts. Nor does it violate the 4th amendment rights no more than a DWI stop that if one refuses a breath test it is an automatic loss of license and DWI charge.
Now, I have not seen if what the bill requires to provide proof of citizenship. It may just be a valid driver's license.
Anon and Clark - how do you propose that states likes AZ or the United States combat the illegal immigration problem that increase our medical costs, strains our welfare system and burdens our schools?
Anon..to your last point. No one as the officer does not have the power to pull over someone solely to determine citizenship.
ReplyDelete"The law does not allow for the police officer to randomaly pull people over or confront them on the street; rather the law allows the officer to ask for proof of citizenship as part of their activities when stopping someone."
ReplyDeleteAnd how is the requirement of "probable cause" dealt with Chris? The officer MUST have probable cause to ask for this information and it cannot be based upon racial origins as that has already been struck down by the US Supreme court.
Chris, you don't see this as hypocritic because YOU are not affected by it. How convenient. The expansion of government powers to usurp constitutional rights is not lawful. The 4th amendment has been upheld by all political make-ups of the supreme court - liberal and conservative. It's a sacrosanct amendment that is above reproach or challenge. This law breaches it because it is unnecessarily vague as to what rights it gives the police, does not address the requirements for probable cause, AND puts the burden on the citizen to prove innocence and lack of proof is equivalent to guilt requiring arrest.
The difference between DWI and illegal status is that if I'm DUI, it's probably going to have some outward evidence that can justify probable cause such as inability to pass sobriety tests, the smell of alcohol on my breath etc. What is the officer using to validate their probable cause requirement with regards to illegal status?
Again, this stinks of hypocrisy. Supporting the constitution is not only when it's convenient to your political stances - it's an all or nothing document. The moment you usurp one citizens rights, you infringe upon all of ours.
I'm all for tackling the illegal immigrant issue we have, but breaching the constitution to do so takes away from us all.
But it sure makes the right wing establishment feel good in the process. Too bad most of their followers don't have a clue what this means with regards to the constitution. It's a crime that civics classes in public schools are so bad.
Oh, and drivers licenses are not valid proof of citizenship since you don't have to be a citizen to get one and no proof of citizenship is shown at the point of issuance.
ReplyDeleteThe requirement is a birth certificate or some other manner of documentation. In truth, this legislation will open the door to a more intrusive and far less benign form of identification - the national citizenship identification card.
And that thought should scare us all.
Kevin nailed it. There is no probable cause in questioning someone's citizenship when they've been pulled over for a traffic violation or are jaywalk. Just like being pulled over for speeding doesn't give probable cause to search the trunk for drugs.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course the law doesn't give authority to randomly stop people and ask for citizenship. That would clearly be unconstitutional. The issue will be in application. Will every white person pulled over be asked for proof of citizenship? Heck no.
How about this? If you are pulled over for running a red light, does the officer have probable cause to ask you if you ever committed tax fraud by cheating on your taxes? And then arrest you on the spot when you can't prove right there that you didn't?
ReplyDeleteDoes the Constitution apply to illegal immigrants? If the Arizona Law does become unconstitutional what do is suggested to curb illegal immigration and how do determine who is here already illegally?
ReplyDeleteAnon..tax cheating, please. Now we are bordering on the ridiculous.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you do, I just know it can't violate the constitution. Put up a fence across the border. Dig a giant ditch and flood it and fill it with angry sea bass with lasers.
Why is it ridiculous? The action is the same. Suspecting and detaining someone for a crime without probable cause that a crime was committed.
An illegal immigrant has Constitutional rights? Really? They are illegal and not covered by the Constitution as it applies to United States citizens. Or did I miss something that the US Constitution became the law of North America?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that putting up a fence and other deterrents as said before by Kevin is required. The biggest issue is how can we enforce illegal immigration without violating the 4th Amendment of legal citizens.
Why is it wrong if police target a certain segment of the population? The vast majority of illegal immigrants comes from Latin America, right? That being said then we need to target the areas of greatest concern because that is how one solves the problem or any problem. Unfortuantely I do not see a way to round up illegal immigrants without a little disruption to legal citizens lives.
"An illegal immigrant has Constitutional rights? Really?"
ReplyDeleteYes they do in most cases. They are on US soil and have the same rights to a large degree as citizens. Habeus corpus, freedom from unlawful searches, freedom of speech, etc. Sorry, but this has been ruled on by even the most conservative of justices to be true. Would you prefer otherwise?
And enforcing illegal immigration is not what this bill's sponsor intended by his own words. Pearce said that if the bill makes illegal immigrants lives harder then so be it. (paraphrased)
Therefore, this isn't about enforcement but harrassment. The fact that citizens will be just as harrassed if their heritage is hispanic seems to not bother Pearce, who is white.
Funny how easy it is to give up another persons constitutional rights when you yourself won't be affected.
Sad and disgusting.
"Why is it wrong if police target a certain segment of the population?" A small thing called the Constitution. It might be the most effective method, but efficiency isn't what we are after. That's not what the founding fathers you so often invoke believed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sheriff-okaloosa.org/Immigration/Do%20Illegal%20Aliens%20Have%20Constitutional%20Rights.pdf
ReplyDelete"Why is it wrong if police target a certain segment of the population?"
ReplyDeleteHow can you call yourself a supporter of the constitution and state this? Chris, this is the antithesis of what the constitution stands for.
So since most abortion clinic bombers and murders of doctors are white, middle class, european descent and devoud "born again" christians we should put in place a law allowing the police to pull over and search the cars of anyone fitting that description outside a clinic/doctors office. And those that can't prove they're there for some legitimate business would be arrested on the hypothesis that they are bombers.
Would you be ok with this Chris? If not, why not? Or do the constitutional protections afforded by the 1st and 4th amendments (for starters) only apply to those of eurpoean descent and hispanics should sacrifice theirs upon the altar of tyranny? Because that's what you're advocating.
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
How is going to jail if you don't have proof of citizenship a little disruption? I like to run. I never carry ID with me. If I were stopped, I would go to jail under this law. That's a major disruption. I'm not going to carry a SS card or birth certificate with me. If those were lost, it would cause a major disruption in my life. Not just to replace them, but the possiblity of identity theft.
ReplyDeleteI'm just waiting for the first hispanic citizen of the US to be arrested for lack of "proof". I'm sure the taxpayers have no idea the quantity of their tax dollars that will be paid to fight or settle those lawsuits when they occur. Because they WILL occur.
ReplyDeleteViper, if it helps, look up the 14th amendment to the Constitution, citizenship clause. In 1982 the US Supreme Court struck down a Texas state law aiming to bar illegal children from attending public school. They held that no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.
ReplyDeleteThis Arizona law could be tied to that case, specifically Plyer vs Doe (457 US 202).
What I find interesting about this Arizona law is the fact that not more than two years ago, they passed an employer sactions law that supposedly had a lot of teeth. Problem is, employers have money, and they were able to wiggle their way out of reasons as to why they hired illegal workers.
Number of businesses prosecuted who either knowingly or unknowingly hired illegal workers since 2006 enactment? ONE...
Why? Because it costs money to prosecute a business...
It costs far less money to turn over an illegal immigrant to the INS...
Which one would be more effective?
That's an interesting statistic. The fact is that if you turn off demand for cheap labor, the illegals will go home. As long as that demand exists, they will come seeking a better life. And truthfully, I can't blame them because I'd do the same in their shoes. Poverty is an amazing motivator.
ReplyDeleteSadly businesses have more rights today than citizens.
Are consumers willing to pay the higher cost of goods and services? I don't think they will be. In a poll or for a story, they will say yes. As a whole, they will think so. When it comes to their own pocketbook, I don't think many will be. Just my opinion, though.
ReplyDeleteThere are about 1/3 as many illegal citizen in Arizona now than just a year ago. Also, I found out that the Mexican population was reduced by 41% during the 1930's. Police were given the power to deport people even if they were legal citizens of the US. This basically shows that immigration is not really a law-enforcement issue but an economic one.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, the citizens of this country seem to believe that illegal immigrants are just pouring across the border. That is simply not the case. Many of those who are looking for work do try to use the proper channels, but as we know that takes too long for those who live in poverty.
All Cubans have to do is set one foot on American soil to become US citizens automatically...I guess if Mexico has some socialist dictator things would be different.
Viper seems like the rest of the misinformed conservative public in thinking that "the influx of illegal immigrants taxes our health care system, burdens our schools system, and creates additional concerns for our police." There simply isn't any proof of that.
In the 19th century it was the Irish.
In the 20th century it was blacks.
Now in the 21st century it's latinos that are being discriminated against because upper-class white people think they bring poverty to the US.
Arizona is not discriminating against Latinos by demanding their State pass legislation as they did. Arizona is experiencing something none of us in other states is, expect for maybe Texas, with ranchers being killed, Mexican Death Squads entering the state to kill and kidnappings in Phoenix. I did a little more research on the 4th Amendment argument as well.
ReplyDeletePrior to the signing of the illegal immigration law it was the Federal Government that had the power to ask for proof of citizenship. The trouble is, in Arizona, that Federal agents are not doing their job thus the passage of the bill. The bill adds to the power the Federal Government has to the State Police. So if it is okay for the Federal Government to detain, search, and deport illegal immigrants why is it not okay, Constitutionally speaking, for the State do it as well.
In my opinion States have allowed the Federal Government to erode their powers that they agreed to when they adopted the Consititution. It is about time that States stand up for their rights to protect their citizens.
Now as for Anon assertion that I am overstating the burden that illegal immigrants has on health care, schools, and welfare.
Texas state comptroller reported in 2006 that illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3B.
California reported in 2004 it costs $1.4B
2005 Colorado and Minnesota reported costs of $31M and $17M respectively
These are older numbers I recognize and with other trends they are more likely more now.
"The trouble is, in Arizona, that Federal agents are not doing their job thus the passage of the bill."
ReplyDeleteChris, cite proof of this VERY inflamatory statement. I bet you have none. But I did some research for you and found that 43% of all border enforcement arrests (491,771) in 2005 were in the Arizona area and that overall the border partol arrested 1,139,282 illegal entrants. So please explain exactly HOW the government is not doing their job? Are they doing less than they can be? Perhaps, but that's a matter of perspective and funding. But to say without any proof that they are not doing their job is not only slanderous to the people putting their lives on the line to defend that border but dishonest too.
And as to your criminal statistics, Arizona isn't alone. Try going to Chicago lately? The legislature is talking about activating the national guard to patrol the streets it's so bad. Again, your information quite disengenuous.
It is not Ok for a state to enforce immigration because that is the jurisdiction of the Federal goverment as dictated by the constitution. You attitude seems to be that the constitution is only applicable when it suits you and isn't the rest of the time. Which is it, are you for the constitution or are you not? You can't be for it when it comes to healthcare reform and against it when it comes to immigration - that's a hypocritic stance.
"In my opinion States have allowed the Federal Government to erode their powers that they agreed to when they adopted the Consititution. It is about time that States stand up for their rights to protect their citizens."
So the States rights that are enshrined in the constitution protecting against things like the healthcare mandate are sacrosanct to you but the constitutional has no bearing when it comes to states in any other regard? Really?
Do you pick and choose your religious beliefs as arbitrarily and capriciously as you do your political ones?
How convenient for you.
Chris, I realize my above post is inflamatory. But my frustration isn't with your position on immigration - I agree that immigration is a serious problem that needs addressed properly and the first steps are stopping demand (curtail hiring) and stopping inflow.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the fact that you use the constitution as a doormat to your arguments except when it suits you in cases like healthcare reform and then claim to want to go back to a day when the constitution was the highest authority infuriates me because your behavior screams the opposite stance.
You cannot have an argument asserting constitutional empowerments of states with one hand and with the other state that constitutional limitations to states rights don't matter. It that's not a logical or honest position to stand for.
Either you're for the constitution in it's entirety or you're not. But you can't pick and choose the parts you like and disregard those you don't.
What would you use as reasonable suspicion in applying this law?
ReplyDeleteArdent Viper, I don't believe you answered my second question yesterday so I'll ask it again.
ReplyDeleteIf there is no steadfast look of an illegal immigrant, what would or could create the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to inquire as to a person's citizenship status?
"Arizona is experiencing something none of us in other states is, expect for maybe Texas, with ranchers being killed, Mexican Death Squads entering the state to kill and kidnappings in Phoenix." Do you think these things will stop by the bill AZ signed? Do you think cartel leaders are all of sudden going to stop coming into the US and doing these things?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe they are too concerned about a local police officer stopping them. Nor do I think they will stop. Even if the reform rounds up low level members of drug cartels, there will be two more people ready to fill in. The bill does nothing to stop those problems because it doesn't address the cause. Drugs and money.
I think the majority of people impacted will be those who come here seeking honest work.
Anon..The bill enacted by Arizona will help local police as they will have the same power the Federal agents have on the ground when they reasonably suspect that someone stopped for a unlawful act is not a legal citizen. Will this curb the death squads and the killing of ranchers, sure it will. The deterent to crossing the border in Arizona and staying in Arizona is that if you are caught by local police you will get deported if found out that you are here illegally.
ReplyDeleteThe big issue is illegal immigration and how to curb it. As I have said before, the Arizona law does not create a new law outside of the fact it gives local and state police the same powers Federal agents have in enforcing current illegal immigration law. Where is that unconsitiutional?
As for what is "reasonable suspicion", I am not sure but here is a scenario. Officer pulls over a white escort doing 70 in a 55. The Officer approaches the driver side to find four people in the car. The officer asks for drivers license and proof of insurance. Unfortunately the driver cannot produce either. The officer then ask for name and place of residence. The driver complies. The officer goes back to the squad to verify information. Upon checking the data does not check out. Does this scenario give rise to "reasonable" suspicion to check for immigration status? Does this scenario violate once 4th Amendment right if detained to check further for immigration stauts? Is this officer racial profiling?
I'm sure "death squads" are really concerned about being deported and of the local police and not rival drug gangs who have no code of conduct or ethics. We'll have to disagree on that one. Millions of dollars in drugs or deportation, they'll take their chances and continue to find ways into the country because it's too lucrative.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think that alone rises to reasonable suspcion. Nor do I believe that's how this law is going to be enforced.
Anon.. I will agree with you that the "death squads" see little deterance from authority. The drug trade, although powerful aspect, is just one aspect of our relation troubles with mexico. We can discuss that topic on another thread. I think I may have talked about it in a more radical sense though previously.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of this law that is not being mentioned in this thread is the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
ReplyDelete"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Immigration and Naturalization is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, more precisely the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If needed, the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g)authorizes the DOHS secretary to direct local and state law enforcement officers to perform immigration law. But only if the proper training is given.
So, by this, a state legislature is not constitutionally bound to trump the federal immigration law, bound by the Supremacy Clause.
This law was done for the sole intention of ginning up political support for conservative candidates and will do nothing to curb illegal immigration in this country...
Anon, don't bother citing the portions of the constitution that restrict States rights in this area. I'm still waiting for Chris to show me where this legislation does NOT conflict with the constitution he claims to hold as the highest authority in the land.
ReplyDelete"The bill enacted by Arizona will help local police as they will have the same power the Federal agents have on the ground when they reasonably suspect that someone stopped for a unlawful act is not a legal citizen."
Wrong on it's face. I did some research last night and a clause within the new bill creates a loophole the size of a Mack truck. Because the state was concerned with the constitutional conflicts this bill created, they allowed for a loophole that basically allows a person to refuse to provide ANY form of citizenship paperwork simply by affirming verbally that they are a citizen and then refusing further documentation as proof. The police are REQUIRED by federal law which supercedes state law to accept this as truthful unless they have concrete evidence to the contrary.
That's quite a friggin loophole.
Police officer - "Are you an illegal alien?"
Hispanic person - "No officer, I'm a citizen."
Police officer - "Can I see proof of this?"
Hispanic person - "No."
In that scenario the police officer has no recourse and must accept their statement as fact. The only situation where this would not be true is if they catch them atop a border fence or something similar where they are crossing the border and thus create a reasonable probability that they are lying and are indeed illegal. But that scenario is very slim in it's probability of occurance since the state and local jurisdictions do not have authority to patrol the border. That is federal jurisdiction.
"Upon checking the data does not check out. Does this scenario give rise to "reasonable" suspicion to check for immigration status? "
No, this is considered fishing by the officer and is prohibited by the 4th amendment to the constitution. Unless he has reasonable reason to presume that they are illegal immigrants (and he can't use nationality in that judgement) he cannot proceed because this has been deemed an unlawful search of the person being questioned. That's a breach of the constitution.
Again I ask Chris, do you value the constitution in it's entirety or do you pick and choose which parts you support based upon whatever the situation is? This is a serious question and one of the main reasons I dislike the Tea Party. They claim to support the constitution but only in those scenario's that support their cause. (By the way, I'm not asserting that you are a Tea Party member, but you seem to support their causes quite a bit)
That's like people picking which of the 10 commandments they want to abide by. I like #6 - thou shalt not kill. But that darn #7 - thou shalt not commit adultery is really crimping my sex life. I'll just skip that one, god won't notice will he?
Kevin...I do value the Constitution. I value more than our Supreme Court and Politicians do. Implied Powers and other interpretations have lead to the erosion of State Rights. The States originally adopted the Constitution as a means to gain security and not give up their rights as States.
ReplyDeleteA border state has an unique responsibility for their citizens because of their location relative to other states in the Union to protect their citizens. Supporting this bill does not through the Constitution under the bus. The law clearly states that the local agencies are just given the power that Federal agencies already have.
The bill calls out no particular group thus it is not racist or discriminatory. Granted the largest influx of illegal immigrants come from a particular area of Northern Hemisphere in Arizona. The law applies to all illegal immigrants. Plus, if you are here illegally it is against the law. Are we picking and choosing which laws to follow?
Of course the bill doesn't call out a group, that would be unconstitutional on its face. The fear is the application of the law. In who the police will target. Since most immigrants in AZ are from Mexico, legally and illegally, the police will apply this law more to Mexicans. Do you believe the police will be asking white people who are acting "reasonably suspicious" for their documentation? That's not how the law is going to be applied.
ReplyDeleteIf the cops ask for everyones' paperwork, then no, the law is less likely unconstitutional. Just like if the federal agents only asked for a specific groups, or targeted a group, the law action would be unconstitutional. The determination to further question can't be made on race.
You also look to the intent and impact when determining if something is discriminatory. The impact will clearly be on one race and the intent is to harass a certain race and to stop immigration from Mexico.
ReplyDelete"I value more than our Supreme Court and Politicians do."
ReplyDeleteNo offense, but I'm finding that hard to believe given that you are supporting a law that errodes the very thing you say to value more than the politicians and supreme court do. That seems contrary to your statement above which means that one of the two is likely untrue.
"Implied Powers and other interpretations have lead to the erosion of State Rights"
THIS IS NOT ABOUT IMPLIED POWERS. The 4th amendment clearly defines certain rights. The 15th amendment clearly defines certain rights. The constitution clearly defines that foreign policy is the RIGHT and JURISDICTION of the Federal government. It doesn't matter if you are arizona, california, Iowa or Minnesota. Foreign border or no, you CANNOT enact your own laws to enforce a foreign policy matter as a state. End of story, the constitution is not flexible or open to interpretation on this. There is no IMPLIED in that.
"Plus, if you are here illegally it is against the law."
I've not seen anyone argue against this fact. There is a significant and serious illegal immigration issue in this country. But it is a Federal issue, not state. The states neither have the power nor the authority to enact their own laws on this subject. Furthermore, laws that abridge any rights such as equal protection or search and siezure are unconstitutional. This law is impossible to apply WITHOUT abridging either of those amendments to the document you claim to hold so dear.
If you claim to hold it so dear, why are you willing to abridge your own rights?
The state cannot take away rights you won't give up willingly. And you seem more than willing to give up these rights because while this bill does not target you directly, indirectly you are still affected. Every citizen of this nation is affected.
You reallly think you value the constitution more than people who have taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution and have spent their adult lives studying the document. Everything they do is because they value that same document. You might have a different opinion of what it means, but that doesn't, at all, in anyway, mean they don't value the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThat's just insulting to those public servents and be careful up on your high horse.
Anon...a lot of our "people" that take an oath to defend the Constitution, military not included here, are doing so very poorly. If these "people" were defending the Consitituion we would not have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Patriot Act, TARP, Health Care Mandate, Government Ownerhsip in Two of Three Michigan automakers and the Fed would not exist.
ReplyDeleteOur "people" are more worried about votes than actually adhering and defending the Constitution. Now I do paint with a broad brush but I'd say that is dead on for 90% of our "people".
Chris, you're saying that the supreme court, which I might add has been dominated by conservatives for the majority of the last 100 years is doing a bad job defending the constitution? (their job I might add)
ReplyDeleteReally?
Maybe we need more liberals on the court then huh?
I honestly give up here. You are saying you hold the constitution dear, and I want to believe you. But the fact is, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You can't with one hand rail against the healthcare bill for infringements on the constitution and with the other hand claim that the states have the right to abridge constitutionally guaranteed federal powers with the other.
You are holding up the constitution in your defense with one hand and using it to wipe your ass with the other hand. And I have a real problem with that stance. But it is the stance of the Tea party - which probably explains quite of bit of why I despise that group so badly. Faux-Constitutionalists bother me.
I truly hope you do some research and realize the error of your stance on this.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteYou are all for a health care mandate yet are against Arizona enforcing illegal immigration law in so far the context of the Constitution. That being said, if I am to be speaking out both sides of my mouth then so are you and anyone else for that matter.
The ruling of Implied Powers by the Supreme Court opened Pandora's Box as to what Congress can and cannot enact. Plus they started us down the road to States reliquinishing their rights because of liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Could you please explain your understanding of the Implied Powers? Do you believe we have a constitutional right to privacy? Do you believe private citizens, acting in an individual capacity, have a right to bear arms?
ReplyDelete"You are all for a health care mandate yet are against Arizona enforcing illegal immigration law in so far the context of the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteExcuse me? When have I said I'm for the healthcare mandate? Please cite chapter and verse with evidence or admit you are full of shit!
What I've always said was that I question whether or not the mandate is constitutional and I think we'll be disappointed that it is deemed constitutional by the supreme court when it gets there. And it WILL get there.
I suspect the supremacy clause and the interstate commerce clause will be used as justifications because to unravel those two clauses from prior decisions would undo 100 years of federal legislation and not even the Supreme court would allow that.
So don't pull this type of shit by putting words in my mouth I've never said. I've never said I'm for the mandate.
I am consistent in my defense of the constitution whether it be the healthcare discussion, the rights of corporations to donate politically, the patriot act, or immigration.
I do believe that states rights have been infringed in areas such as regulation of commerce, environment, etc. I do not think states rights have been infringed where they had none to begin with, such as immigration.
And Anon, Chris uses the term "implied powers" to define powers that the Federal government "assumes" through implied authority. The authority is implied because the constitution does not specifically address the subject clearly.
He tends to take a very literalist definition in his interpretations but his consistency in that regard is in question in my book.
I've asked Chris directly about the right to privacy and have never gotten a satisfactory yes or no to whether or not he believes in them. I doubt you will either.
Yeah, I'm well aware of the scope and nature of it and have studied it extensively. Hamilton and Washington both knew that they could not lay out all of the areas and powers the constitution would and should cover and that it had to evolve over time. An attempt to do so would have created a document that was far to detailed and yet not encompassing enough.
ReplyDeleteFurther, if implied powers were not intended, and the constitution was to be taken as a literal textual guiding document, the necessary and proper clause would not have been needed. The drafters would not have put in a superifluous clause.
One must believe in implied powers in order to conclude a right to privacy. From a strict textual approach, it could easily be argued that the right to bear arms is strictly tied to the forming of a well regulated militia, which is not the cause today.
For everyone wondering whether or not this will lead to racial profiling. Here's something for you: 30% of Arizona's population is hispanic. How could police officers possibly carry out their job if they were to stop everyone with slightly darker skin. If you actually read the law (which I'm sure most of you haven't) you will realize 2 things:
ReplyDelete1)The law focuses on suspicious BEHAVIOR not suspicious persons. Actions such as soliciting yourself for work on the roads are what will prompt police officers to ask for proof of citizenship.
2) This law is no different than the federal law. The federal law requires that someone must provide proof of U.S citizenship. The entire debate is not about the law, but whether or not we are going to enforce it. When tons upon tons of illegal drugs are smuggled in, funding crime rings, I believe it is the duty of American government to protect its citizens.
Lastly, as for the Constitution question. Here's the 14th Amendment text "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Key word here: citizens. Illegal immigrants are not subject to the equal protection clause because they are not citizens of the United States.
That is all.
Anon...
ReplyDeleteHere is the deal. The Arizona law does not allow the officer to randomly pull over anyone nor does it all them to stop the mom or dad on the way back from the ice cream parlor. The law only allows the officer to enforce Federal law if they are reason suspicion.
And you are right on the 14th Amendment but the Arizona law, please read the other post as well that shows the law, looks to enforce Federal law that already exists. Plus, it is illegal to be the United States without proper Visa or required paperwork. Why do we through the rule of law out for some but enforce it on others?