What is Going On in Arizona?

[custosnox]

You've answered your own question. The fact it is "very vague" is reason enough to strike it down. Vagueness very often causes a law to overstep people's constitutional rights. Vagueness has been cited again and again for a law being overturned.

That in and of itself does not make the law unconstitutional.  I don't agree with the vagueness nor how it will be used, I'm just pointing out that the law itself does not violate constitution. 

[we vs us]

The law, as I've seen it reported, makes it incumbent on law enforcement to actively stop and ask for proof of citizenship.  Especially in Arizona, where, say, illegal Canadians aren't too common, the target of this is very clearly people who "look" illegal, ie. hispanics.   That's the racist part.  It's also the unconstitutional part, and would be a violation of any legal citizen's civil rights, whether they're of hispanic or Canadian extraction.  

I'm skeptical of the conventional widsom that says that illegals are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens.  Just as in the drug trade, crime stemming from the economics of illegal entry into the US is way out of line (Dback's kidnapping, smuggling, murder, etc), but I have yet to see any proof whatsoever that illegals themselves, once here and employed, are any more predisposed to crime than we are.

IMO, the problem with this legislation is that it targets illegals only, and doesn't specifically go after the infrastructure that makes illegal immigration work so well.  That includes not only the organized crime syndicates who sponsor those coyote runs, but also the drug trade and the businesses that rely on cheap labor to function (farming, construction, the service industries, etc).  As per modern conservative thinking, we want to codify this as essentially an individual moral failure -- here the moral failure of the illegal immigrant.  Hence, we punish individuals.  We actively avoid taking on the environment that allows this sort of system to flourish, and rather predictably, the system continues to grow while the damage amongst individuals (and their families) continue to mount.

[guido911]

Man does TNF have a ton of constitutional geniuses or what? I laugh every time I read posts like RW's or WE's where they are so "matter of fact" that a court will strike down a law. Seriously, how many legal opinions have they even read cover to cover?

[we vs us]

Man does TNF have a ton of constitutional geniuses or what? I laugh every time I read posts like RW's or WE's where they are so "matter of fact" that a court will strike down a law. Seriously, how many legal opinions have they even read cover to cover?

Exactly zero, that's how many. 

So? 

[guido911]

Exactly zero, that's how many. 

So? 

So nothing. I guess you are one of those rare uneducated constitutional geniuses I have read about.

[fotd]

So nothing. I guess you are one of those rare uneducated constitutional geniuses I have read about.

Doe Doe, I don't need no constitution to determine right from wrong....

[we vs us]

So nothing. I guess you are one of those rare uneducated constitutional geniuses I have read about.

Never claimed to be a genius on constitutional or any other matters.  I'm only laying out why I think it won't fly.  Feel free to ignore me if I'm not smart enough or well sourced enough for you.  

[guido911]

Never claimed to be a genius on constitutional or any other matters.  I'm only laying out why I think it won't fly.  Feel free to ignore me if I'm not smart enough or well sourced enough for you.  

Oh stop with the pity party. And the point that you are not "well sourced" is way off. You are non-sourced on this issue. Indeed, you wrote "yes this law is unconstitutional.  It'll be struck down in time...". In the future I will consider these unsubstantiated and uneducated opinions as mere whining.

[azbadpuppy]

That in and of itself does not make the law unconstitutional.  I don't agree with the vagueness nor how it will be used, I'm just pointing out that the law itself does not violate constitution. 

Yes it does, because the U.S. constitution clearly states that the federal government alone has the responsibility to enact and enforce immigration laws.

[we vs us]

Oh stop with the pity party. And the point that you are not "well sourced" is way off. You are non-sourced on this issue. Indeed, you wrote "yes this law is unconstitutional.  It'll be struck down in time...". In the future I will consider these unsubstantiated and uneducated opinions as mere whining.

Are you ignoring me yet?  'Cause this doesn't seem like you're ignoring me.

[azbadpuppy]

It does not make AZ a police state where you can be asked "Let Me See Your Papers" at anytime. It is intended to give the local authorities the abililty to determine the status of some ones citizenship only after being in contact with the person for something else.

I agree with the majority of your post, but you are completely wrong on this point, which is the most important point of this legislation.

Under this law, police are now given authority to ask about immigration status for no other reason than 'reasonable suspicion' (i.e. looking like a Mexican). The person does not have to be commiting any kind of crime or be doing anything other than just walking down the street.

So the claim that police will be questioning people only after being in contact with that person for another reason is false. 'Reasonable suspicion' is the only reason needed. I personally cannot think of any other reason for questioning someone's immigration status based solely on 'reasonable suspicion' other than the way a person looks- i.e. their ethnicity, which IS racial profiling.

[guido911]

Are you ignoring me yet?  'Cause this doesn't seem like you're ignoring me.

Ignoring you would be too easy. It's also more fun to publicly discredit you as a prolific race baiter and ideologue.

[guido911]

On the subject of race baiting, great news, Al Sharpton is heading to Arizona:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sharpton_pledge_to_fight_ariz_immig_O7cdlDmQ5GwTBrqZrorD5O

[nathanm]

I have yet to see any proof whatsoever that illegals themselves, once here and employed, are any more predisposed to crime than we are.

Oh, they're predisposed to crime, but of the sort we could instantly ameliorate. You know, driving without a license, having no auto insurance, using false SSNs, that sort of thing.

We turn them into criminals with our moronic rules that attack the wrong end of the problem. Funny that it's done almost exactly opposite how most states conduct the drug war. Our laws are such that we're going after the users rather than the dealers in immigration. Even if we don't liberalize immigration policy, we need to turn that on its head. Unfortunately, anti-immigrant cavemen/women like we have in our own not-so-esteemed legislature are busy making it harder and harder for an illegal immigrant to stay on the right side of the rest of the law. That leads to more problems, which leads to more public outrage, which leads to more backwards laws, like the one we see before us in Arizona.

I used to be one of four white people in a neighborhood of couple thousand Central Americans and Marshallese (the Marshallese were all legal, the Mexicans and Nicaraugans and Guatamalans were mostly not), and the only problem I ever had was that they liked their car stereos loud and their landlords were shittier than mine. It was probably better than most neighborhoods composed mainly of poor white people. There were fewer fistfights and less obvious public drunkenness, anyway.

Things might be different nearer the border where there are drug runners to contend with and fewer opportunities for employment among illegal immigrants, I don't know, but my experience tells me that I have nothing to fear from the vast majority of these people.

[custosnox]

Yes it does, because the U.S. constitution clearly states that the federal government alone has the responsibility to enact and enforce immigration laws.

ummm... where?  I'll admit there are a few of the amendments that I have not read, but beyonjd that I have not seen this anywhere in constitution.  And as far as I know, there has been no supreme court decisions that have stated that the part of the constitution that says that States cannot enter into a treaty with a foreign nation applies to internal immigration laws.  In fact, if this is true, then our own law in Oklahoma would be unconstitutional, yet it still stands.