I like to remind people that BREWER did not run on this issue nor was she elected Governor and that it was a KANSAS loser who could not get this passed in his own state so he went WACKO Rethuglican shopping to sell it and he got him some right fine WACKOs to pass it.

George Will

I wonder what Greta thinks about racial preferences. Isn’t that a form of racial profiling?

I’ll try this again … George Will hit it on the head…The administration does not know what to do other that Bluff hoping Arizona will back down… I don’t see that happening!

The noise you hear is how the law will be implemented… To me that is a false argument…An officer may do something, therefore we shouldn’t do it… It doesn’t make sense to me!

Trust me, the officers I know will be extra cautious and follow the law as do probably 99.9% of the Rank & File Officer does every day doing their job.

Good job Greta!

Forget about Greta Sean 68…

What do you think about racial preferences…is that racial profiling?

I have a follow-up question even before you answer…can you cite the law that speaks to racial preferences and does that law allow or disallow racial profiling?

Stick to the “written law” not your emotions!

The law that speaks to racial preferences? Yeah, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don’t think it uses the exact phrase “racial preferences.”

You don’t think or you don’t know?

And I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person — be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.

They aren’t moron, there has to be reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally.

Kyl: Obama told me he won’t secure the border until Congress agrees to amnesty

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/20/kyl-obama-told-me-he-wont-secure-the-border-until-congress-agrees-to-amnesty/

More chicago style thug politics by the regime.

This is really what’s at the heart of the profiling debate, the fact that, although the law says you can’t profile, no one can explain what other method can be used to find “reasonable suspicion.”

Perhaps them not having a valid DL. Would that constitute reasonable suspicion, TC?

The tyranny of the majority isn’t necessarily rooted in hate or bigotry, but in a failure of empathy.

I get SO sick of the left using this one. I can’t tell you how many times my empathy has been questioned. It’s like the left calling anyone who disagrees a racist, which TC did, but cleverly tried to make us believe that he wasn’t. Sorry TC, the left has jumped the shark on the racism/empathy card. Some of us care deeply for others, but realize there needs to be a rule of law.

T.C.
It might be interesting to your readers if you clarify your own views on this subject. Rather than just disagreeing with a law or a commentator…..what is your own solution to the problem of illegal immigration? Do you believe that it is even a problem? Have you actually been to Arizona and investigated the issue from there and not just from your perch in the White House press room? I think we all know what you are against….I, for one, would like to know what you propose…..how would you fix what some clearly see as broken?

“You don’t think or you don’t know?”

I assume it doesn’t, but I don’t know for sure. But, hey, let’s stop playing games. Just make your point. Mine was only that some of the same people who express horror at the mere thought of racial profiling see nothing wrong with it in cases where they approve of its objectives. For example, Elena Kagan regards don’t ask/don’t tell as a moral crime of the first order, but has no problem with Harvard’s aggressive racial preferences/penalties policy.

Puter, I seem to remember that the questions of “quotas” and “preference” based on race was addressed during debate and the sponsors stated that that was not in the language and would not happen?

“They aren’t moron, there has to be reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally.”

I don’t think anyone needs to be called a “moron.”

How does a law enforcement officer reasonably suspect that someone is here illegally? What exactly does that look like?

And how about a one-day moratorium on Hot Air and all variations of “Chicago-style thug politics?” It’s just so tired. You have made your point and then some.

Grammie, I think you’re right. IIRC H. Humphry said if the law resulted in any kind of quotas system, he’d literally eat the paper it was written on.

Paul, I try to use the work moron only when it’s absolutely required, like in this case. Ok, he’s not so much a moron as a bald faced liar! He is misrepresenting the law on purpose to fit his template, as most libs do.

And how about a one-day moratorium on Hot Air and all variations of “Chicago-style thug politics?” It’s just so tired. You have made your point and then some.

So in other words, you can’t come up with a good way to spin the fact that the regime is putting politics over the safety of it’s citizens. I’m not surprised.

We could argue all day long on whether or not the ADMINISTRATION is “putting politics over the safety of it’s citizens” and how every single ADMINISTRATION in the history of America has been accused of doing the same. I just find it amusing that some gripe about any use of a partisan source like Media Matters but then turn around and use an equally partisan source like Hot Air every chance they get.

And again Michelle, how does a law enforcement officer reasonably suspect that someone is here illegally? What exactly does that look like?

The law doesn’t say people can be stopped for suspicion of being here illegally. It says that if someone is stopped for some infraction such as speeding, the police can check ID (like always) and then act if the person has no valid identification. No matter how often the left repeats it, it does not say anyone can be stopped for ‘looking Mexican’.

Well, since SB1070 is not racial profiling your premise is faulty to begin with. But since that has never stopped a Liberal before, especially when false sanctimony is involved I am not surprised.
Here’s what the president said, ‘The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have a reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.’ In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform. I explained that, ‘you and I, Mr. President, have an obligation to secure the border. That’s an obligation. It also has potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border, but you have to secure the border to get comprehensive reform.’ I said, ‘you would be surprised maybe you don’t think there wouldn’t be no incentive for comprehensive reform, but I’m not so sure that’s true. In any event, it doesn’t matter. We’re supposed to secure the border.’

But that’s why it’s being done. They frankly don’t want to do it. They want to get something in return for doing their duty.”-Sen Kyl (AZ)

So he needs a little quid pro quo before doing his constitutional duty.
What a shocker that is….

Thanks, Sean.

I also seem to remember when the first cases against quotas and preferences reached SCOTUS they ignored that assurance from Humphrey and upheld exactly those same things.

While your last sentence is completely true writer, the law says that once lawful contact has been and reasonable suspicion that the person is an unlawful alien exists, a reasonable attempt to determine legal status should be made. Read it all here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

How does a law enforcement officer reasonably determine whether or not an individual is an illegal alien? What does that look like?

The reasonable suspicion comes after the person can’t produce a valid ID. If he does, no problem.

I don’t always carry ID on me. And does that apply to every scenario in which a law enforcement officer makes contact with an individual?

“How does a law enforcement officer reasonably determine whether or not an individual is an illegal alien? What does that look like?”

First, the officer is not the one to make that determination, period. The law requires him to investigate further if there is a suspicion. How do beat cops do their jobs in regard to any of our laws. They have experience in judging what may look out of place or behavior indicative of illegality. They use their judgment.
.
SCOTUS has already upheld ICE, I think, taking Nationality (ie Mexican) into account when stopping people b/c more than half of all illegals are Hispanic and the bulk of them are Mexican. So, that means appearance and language would be a reasonable factor.

I am certain that there are other tells for LE who work in the areas where illegals represent a high percentage of the population. You and I may not know them but I’m sure the average border town or AZ officer knows them.

We all depend on the good judgment of our police officers to enforce the bulk of our laws. If we didn’t the only reasonable cause the courts would accept would be that an officer witness the crime himself to act. Is that the alternative you want?

If a person doesn’t have an ID, then that would be up to the individual cop how he handles it. The left’s position on the law seems to be that cops will simply say ‘That guy looks Mexican. I’ll stop him for no reason and see if he’s an illegal.’ That isn’t what the law says, and with the number of Hispanics living in Arizona I can’t picture the police taking the time to do it.

“The left’s position on the law seems to be that cops will simply say ‘That guy looks Mexican. I’ll stop him for no reason and see if he’s an illegal.’”

I certainly don’t believe that to be true. I also don’t begrudge Arizona’s decision here. They believed action needed to be taken and it is all too easy for me to criticize them from far away. It does seem that the law is at least a little vague in places and open to broad interpretation.

Finding someone who ‘looks Mexican’ in Arizona would be like finding sand on the beach. The cops would have time for nothing else. The law was mainly a cry for help, pointing out to the feds that the border is out of control and they’re doing nothing to help the situation.

Can’t argue with that. I believe you are correct.

As they say in Pirates of the Caribbean, we have an accord.

@ MichelleF , Grammie

At least we know that they will be well cared for .

My personal favorites ,

“…..detainees will see more variety in their dining hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh vegetable bars. ”

“…….plans to offer movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training, the e-mail states.”

http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7043040.html

How does a law enforcement officer reasonably determine whether or not an individual is an illegal alien? What does that look like?

Here is a little scenario that goes on throughout the country … every day on traffic stops!

Officer: Good evening sir, May I see your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance?
Driver: No hablo English!
Officer: Drivers License, do you carry a driver’s license.
Driver: No hablo English!
Officer: Standby
Officer using his radio, “Dispatch,
Dispatch:
Officer: Could you send out a Spanish Interpreter to my location?
Dispatch: Copy An interpreter has been dispatched!

Now…I will tell you, officers go through this scenario, and the individuals are not illegal. Some of you just like to screw with the cop’s …it is a game with you…but a game you usually loose!

If they give a name, birth date, SSAN, last address, this information can be crossed checked through NCIC.

If the tail end of the trunk is significantly lower and the trunk is opened and 8 people jump out and run, as an ex officer, I would suspect they were probably not going to a drive in movie and best guess is that they are illegal.

Who ever said you don’t carry an ID and you are driving…you could be let loose, ticketed or arrested…it kind of depends on you and your attitude.

Paul, Do you realize the LEGAL immigrants are required to carry proof of citizenship with them?

Why wasn’t the left outraged about this before the AZ law was passed?

BatBoy says:
June 21, 2010 at 12:20 pm

“If they give a name, birth date, SSAN, last address, this information can be crossed checked through NCIC.”
_______

SPOT ON ! I haven’t been able to understand how seemingly intelligent people cannot wrap their heads around this concept.

If you are in the system the officer would say ” Here’s your ticket see ya ” . If none of the information you give him checks out he may take a closer look .

I forgot to add….

In order for the officer to make the initial stop, he or she must have “Probable Cause.”

If you don’t have Probable Cause, then the officer will lots of issues with the court…and that is not a good thing!

What constitutes “probable cause” is determined by the legislature, not the officer! The check on the legislature is the courts. Hey….it works!

I love how the left goes to extremes to attack this law. “I don’t carry an ID.” Yeah, right. I sure you don’t drive on a regular basis.

I, for one, hardly ever drive. I walk, ride my bike, or use public transportation. I rarely ever need to drive anywhere. And again, I am not attacking this law. I’m not going to bash Arizona for doing something they felt was necessary while I sit thousands of miles away from them and their border with Mexico. As a columnist for the Arizona Republic said in a recent piece, many who live outside the state have no idea what it’s really like there, especially near the border.

OH BAT@#$%BOY, I think your a little wrong about The President Backing Down, there is EQUAL PROTECTION THINGYS and the fact that CALIFORNIA lost this fight 12 years ago, and the south lost it so many times we cant even count them with all your fingers and toes and it being ILLEGAL and UN-CONSTITUTIONAL for a State to usurp FEDERAL AUTHORITY and those ARTICLE 9 issues (not the 10th as idiots think).

Do not ever count on a President backing down to a GOVERNOR it just don’t happen .

If you wanna bet “I’ll be your huckleberry” and I will spend your money in the end.

Oh nooooooooooooooooooo

”
Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is expected to leave his job later this year after growing tired of the “idealism” of Barack Obama’s inner circle.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 10:00PM BST 20 Jun 2010

Tommy:
It’s funny that it “infuriates” you that the 70% who support this law is almost identical to the “non-white” population. It doesn’t “infuriate” you that, by your reasoning, the only people who don’t support this law, the overwhelming minority, are all hispanic? You don’t care that the only reason 30% of the people out there don’t suppport the law is because of racial bias as opposed to what’s best for their state and fellow citizens? You don’t care that 30% of Arizonan’s turn a blind eye toward the infiltration of their state, the huge crime problem on their borders, etc. because those breaking the law look like them?

You should be embarrassed by your ridiculous statement.

I’ll take that bet…..

Obama is a Community Organizer…The ONLY thing he has going for him is threating to do something in the future….

If he had something he would have filed the law suit by now, but he doesn’t…

Now where will I spend that Money! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Huge crime problem indeed, which goes both ways.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0116americanguns0116.html

“The destruction of Zazalpa is just one of dozens of unrelated drug skirmishes in Mexico with a common element: American guns.”

TC, you try too hard to present in ways that fit the narrative you want to project. If you want to use Demographics and demographics that frustrates the Hell out of you then try this one to lessen the frustration. Use AZ demographics in towards helping you not insinuate the AZ bill is race based:

“NOT as NEARLY mirrors” – 70% in AZ support SB1070. Non-Hispanic white as you stated above in AZ is 57% At last count). Feel better?

- Hate to break your naivete, Legal residents/citizens not carrying ample point of ID has been around for a long time. Fed and Local law enforcement for 35 years or more have been able to investigate illegal immigration. Meaning 1000′s of legal citizens did not carry enough ID at some point to be asked if legal and had to go through ‘process’ to produce and verify legal status. You really believe that NOT a Single citizen in 35 years has ever been asked for proof of citizenship and did not have their ID on them. I would guess not. I hope not. NOTHING has changed (except your vilification). Not unconstitutional now, not unconstitutional in SB1070 to ask legal citizens for ID (proof of legal status)

BTW, federal law already permits investigations of the immigration status of victims. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that passengers in a car are “detained” if the driver is stopped for a crime or traffic violation; occupants of a home may be “detained” if it is searched pursuant to a warrant. Accordingly, the statute supports that the police will investigate the status of people who are not themselves suspected of any wrongdoing as permitted by Fed Law.

The question for you becomes, do you agree local law enforcement already has the authority to investigate immigration status? Do you agree currently constitutional for legal citizens to be asked for ID/status? Do you agree that AZ demographics and polling less supports your US demographics stats above? Do you agree that Fed law already allows ‘race’ to be a considered in immigration enforcement? Do you agree that with existing “consensual encounter”, police can talk to anyone, at any time, about any thing (such as ID), with no basis or reason, so long as they do not create the impression that cooperation is required? Careful, because existing law and stats concludes that a yes to all these questions is the correct answer

Writer writes:

“The law was mainly a cry for help, pointing out to the feds that the border is out of control and they’re doing nothing to help the situation.”

IMHO, the law was mainly a political ploy to solidify the White Conservative votes Jan Brewer needs to win an upcoming election. The FACTS are that there are LESS illegal immigrants crossing the border now than when Bush was in office.

Razor’s Edge writes:

“- Hate to break your naivete, Legal residents/citizens not carrying ample point of ID has been around for a long time.”

Let’s see if you know your Constitution. If you’re a PASSENGER in a vehicle pulled over by police, do YOU have to show your identification if requested?

Now Arizona already has a murky “Stop-and-identify” law on the books:

“13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. “

Of course, a person doesn’t know if he or she is being ‘detained” unless he or she asks the officer explicitly, “Am I free to go?” or “Am I being detained?” If you’re saying that all Arizona School Children (and Adults) should be taught their civil rights under Arizona law in class to protect themselves against incrimination, then I’m with you 100%.

Second, do you believe Hispanics are a “race?” If not, then what makes you think White Hispanics don’t consider themselves White, and immune to SB1070 that’s stated reason for existance is the “uncontrolled border” with Mexico?

–Cobra

PB,

I actually considered folding that into this article, but my schedule didn’t allow it. Don’t know that I’ll ever do a position paper on it, as it doesn’t really fit here. My views on immigration are pretty normal. I agree with the President that comprehensive reform is key, or you’re just sticking your finger in increasing numbers of holes.

I think a balance must be struck between allowing a legal, inexpensive labor force, and protecting American wages and jobs. Guest worker programs can work if done properly, or legal immigration can be made more efficient.

I also have no problem with encouraging and assisting immigrants to learn English. It’s as good for them as it is for us. But I don’t agree that bilingual accommodations are the Devil’s work.

Immigration is the one issue where I think bipartisanship can work, because of the opportunity to fine-tune compromises. Healthcare was a different animal, the philosophies were so mutually exclusive.

Cobra, saying there are less people entering illegally now, after millions have already entered illegally, is small comfort. And do you have proof of that? Leave it to you to throw the race card into it. If someone entered your house illegally, would you just say, “Oh, well. They’re here now, so it would be unfair to ask them to leave.” What’s your solution to keep people from breaking our immigration laws?

The reason the fear of racial profiling is alive and well is because most people don’t know of one law (which, I’m assuming, resulted from the Bush “War on Terror”) – did you know that a state DMV is not legally allowed, by federal law, to issue a driver’s license to someone who cannot prove U.S. citizenship or that they are a registered legal alien (i.e., by producing their green card)? Stumbled across that law recently on a DHS Web site (can’t remember which page I was looking at). So, essentially, once an Arizona police officer asks for I.D. and you don’t have a driver’s license, he can detain you until you produce the license (which is, de facto, given the federal law), thereby proving legal citizen or alien status. Enforcement of the new law will probably be done as Sheriff Arpaio has been doing at his stops – stop everyone, ask everyone the same questions; treat everyone the same (apparently, according to the Sheriff from Pina – I think – County, they arrest more whites on outstanding warrants than anyone else).

“paulmdoro says:
June 21, 2010 at 11:04 am
I don’t always carry ID on me. And does that apply to every scenario in which a law enforcement officer makes contact with an individual?”

I was stopped once in my car and I had left me license, registration and insurance card home. My car was impounded until I proved I had the proper papers. Was I racially profiled, Paul?

Cobra:

My reference is under “consensual encounter” and/or the state stop and identify: Supreme Court has already ruled that : A person detained under this section shall state the person’s true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer. BUT also ruled that asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. It further stated that asking a question relating to one’s identity OR a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, violate the Fourth Amendment: While ‘detained”, police have full authority to require proof of ID. Passenger can refuse if still ‘consensual’. But if office claims not free to go or detain can require ID.

The Supreme Court also recognized that most people feel pressured to talk with the police when requested, but that kind of intrinsic pressure does not affect the consensual nature of the encounter. So police can investigate immigration (or drugs, or robbery or any other crime) whenever they choose within the framework of consensual encounters. For such encounters police do not need reasonable suspicion.

I’m not using ‘Non White Hispanics’ in terms of race or ethnicity. I’m quoting language that Govt uses in publishing US or state demographics. TC used similar language in article (language stats are published in) and I did the same.

Rich S…

When you left “Me” license, registration and insurance card home…

No that was probably theft…race had nothing to do with it……

I would say 99.9% of the time, it would not happen in America EXACTLY the way you are telling us now.

Razor’s Edge writes:

“My reference is under “consensual encounter” and/or the state stop and identify: Supreme Court has already ruled that : A person detained under this section shall state the person’s true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer. BUT also ruled that asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. It further stated that asking a question relating to one’s identity OR a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, violate the Fourth Amendment: While ‘detained”, police have full authority to require proof of ID. Passenger can refuse if still ‘consensual’. But if office claims not free to go or detain can require ID.”

Read that all back to yourself, Razor. Give me a BALLPARK figure of how many Americans know what their rights under the law in certain states are. And I’d love for you to give us the vote on that Supreme Court ruling. My bet is on 5-4.

Razor writes:

“The Supreme Court also recognized that most people feel pressured to talk with the police when requested, but that kind of intrinsic pressure does not affect the consensual nature of the encounter. So police can investigate immigration (or drugs, or robbery or any other crime) whenever they choose within the framework of consensual encounters. For such encounters police do not need reasonable suspicion. “

“Consensual” means both people agree to the encounter. Normally, unless I need immediate help or assistance, I can’t think of too many reasons to strike up a “consensual encounter” with a police officer, other than if he or she says “Hello” or waves at me. (Double so if she’s good looking.) It’s almost always precipitated by the police, which may or may NOT be “consensual” based upon if I give consent. I don’t HAVE to answer questions. I’m secure in my persons AND PAPERS unless I’m under arrest, in which case I can claim my 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and request a lawyer be present for any and all questioning.

Third, I question this line:

“So police can investigate immigration (or drugs, or robbery or any other crime) whenever they choose within the framework of consensual encounters. “

“Any other crime” can amount to anything. Look at Arizona’s Loitering Laws:

Arizona Revised Statutes §13-2905 Loitering; classification

B. Loitering under subsection A, paragraph 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor. Loitering under subsection A, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 is a class 3 misdemeanor. “

Remember, Razor…a person doesn’t have to actually be “loitering.” An officer just has to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person HAS loitered, or is ABOUT to commit loitering. And if that officer doesn’t PURSUE an encounter, consensual or otherwise, with a loiterer or potential loiterer whom the good citizens of Arizona within his eyesight believe may be here illegally, that officer can be SUED by those good citizens according to SB1070.

Thus, you have here, in black and white, with no hyperbole, a very realistic example of how SB1070 can easily be turned into a “stop people on the street and demand papers” law.

Razor’s Edge writes:

“I’m not using ‘Non White Hispanics’ in terms of race or ethnicity.”

I’ll leave that one alone in the spirit of keeping a good conversation going.

Writer writes:

“Cobra, saying there are less people entering illegally now, after millions have already entered illegally, is small comfort. And do you have proof of that? Leave it to you to throw the race card into it. If someone entered your house illegally, would you just say, “Oh, well. They’re here now, so it would be unfair to ask them to leave.” What’s your solution to keep people from breaking our immigration laws?”

Proof:

The number of illegal immigrants living in the United States dropped to 10.6 million in 2009 from 11.6 million in 2008, the sharpest decrease in 30 years and a second straight year of decline, according to a Department of Homeland Security report released this week…

“Most unauthorized immigrants come to the United States for employment. When employment opportunities shrink, as they have during the current recession and particularly in those industries employing large numbers of unauthorized immigrants, then it would not be unexpected to see a decrease in the unauthorized population,” says Mr. Chandler. He adds, “DHS believes that the unprecedented resources the department has devoted to deterring crime and smuggling at the Southwest border, as well as smarter and more effective immigration law enforcement the department is implementing across the country, are also contributing factors to this decline.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0211/Illegal-immigration-down-because-of-economy-or-border-control

And Writer, of COURSE it’s about race. America didn’t even HAVE laws against illegal immigration until the end of 19th Century, starting with the Page Law of 1875 (which banned the immigration of Chinese “prostitutes” and wives (loosely defined by the standards of the day) and led to 1882′s Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned the immigration of male Chinese wage laborers.

And if you think Jan Brewer and the conservatives of Arizona aren’t playing the race card…they aren’t stopping with SB1070…

“(CNN) — A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

–Cobra

Cobra:

Yes it was 5-4 ruling. Many SCOTUS rulings are split decisions. Rule of law still makes split SCOTUS rulings law. The same is true for any SCOTUS decisions that are not unamimous decisions. Pick any.

I’m not sure a BALLPARK estimate on those who know. But the fact that I don’t personally know a ballpark figure doesn’t negate the constitutionality of what the Supreme court has already ruled. Based on the stop and identify (Terry stop), SCOTUS also ruled that not only asking for ID, then requesting ID and ultimately arresting person for lack of producing did not violate person’s 4th or 5th amendment rights as long as the requirement to obtain person’s identity was immediately related to the purpose of the lawful stop.

My point is SB1070 is superceded by 4th amendment rights. Which is why above paragraph relevant.

Consensual” does means both people agree to the encounter. Law enforcement as you know can inform you that you are detained or arrested. You know that. I’m just stating SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional based on fact that ‘intrinsic’ pressure does not affect the consensual nature of the encounter. That SCOTUS has already ruled on that. SCOTUS did not find it their responsibility to make it only constitutional if the person knew/did not know their rights.

Your loitering example is a good one to highlight that SB1070 follows what’s already on the books as being constitutional. In other words, a person today, before SB1070 can be stopped for loitering and then checked for immigration. SB1070 doesn’t change that. The hyperbole is that people think SB1070 makes it something new that isn’t already legally going on today. The sue part is new with 1070 but not the ability to check immigration status after being stopped for loitering. That I’m sure occurs today and the legality of it does not change with SB1070. (some say more difficult with 1070 because of ‘lawful contact’ language. As you seem to know, even with consensual encounter framework, law enforcement does not even need reasonable suspicion)

As with your question about citizens knowing about their constitutional rights, many may have more of an issue with existing laws for stop/identify, immigration checks by local law enforcement, consensual etc than they do with SB1070. Much of what I’ve read, detractors are against existing law.

Again, Cobra, we already have over twelve million people here illegally. Saying the flow has slowed is like saying the gulf oil spill has slowed. And every other country has immigration laws that they enforce. They don’t just open their borders and tell everyone to come on in. No matter their race or where they’re from, they’re not allowed in without going through the proper channels. But just because Mexicans are ‘brown’ people, you feel the rules shouldn’t apply, and we should look the other way no matter how many of them break our laws. No other country allows people to enter illegally. Why do you feel that we should?

Writer writes:

“Again, Cobra, we already have over twelve million people here illegally.”

ALL of them are NOT Mexicans. ALL of them are NOT “brown.” Again, just like the OTHER anti-immigration laws written in the past, there is a distinct ethnic component to SB1070.

Writer writes:

“But just because Mexicans are ‘brown’ people, you feel the rules shouldn’t apply, and we should look the other way no matter how many of them break our laws. “

America DOES look the other way…for Cubans who simply have to make it ashore and they’ll be instantly granted amnesty. If you think ICE is combing the streets of NYC for illegal European immigrants, I’ve got a bridge nearby to sell you. And if you think that the fine conservative citizens of Arizona are going to demand enforcement of SB1070 on a Nordic Coed Volleyball player from ASU who overstayed her visa as vigorously as a brown-skinned Mexican washing dishes in the steakhouse down the street, you’re kidding yourself.

Ronald Reagan signed an AMNESTY bill that legalized 1.7 million illegal immigrants in one fell swoop. If you “legalize” something, it ceases being illegal. Except, many business conservatives don’t want them to REALLY become citizens, because then they can’t hold the threat of deportation over their heads as they exploit their labor. They would rather have a “work visa” program, where they can keep the wages down, offer no benefits and keep the game afoot.

Writer, do you REALLY want a guy like Russell Pearce writing immigration laws? REALLY?

RazorsEdge writes:

“Many SCOTUS rulings are split decisions. Rule of law still makes split SCOTUS rulings law. The same is true for any SCOTUS decisions that are not unamimous decisions. Pick any. “

Dred Scott, Plessy v. Fergusson, Lum v. Rice, Hirabayashi v. United States ….just to name a few of the most repulsive majority decisions ever made by the SCOTUS. A majority decision isn’t neccessarily a “just” one.

Razor’s Edge writes:

“The hyperbole is that people think SB1070 makes it something new that isn’t already legally going on today. The sue part is new with 1070 but not the ability to check immigration status after being stopped for loitering.”

Do you understand the implication of having the threat of lawsuits hanging over the heads of not only police officers, but “agents and officials” if they DON’T check the immigration status of people when ordered by “citizens?” Do you understand how this is going to play out during election time, since Arizona under Jan Brewer, made it a FELONY for illegal immigrants to even REGISTER to vote, much less vote in elections? That means if you’re a brown person seen “registering to vote” or attending vote registration drives, or STANDING IN LINE AT THE POLLS, under SB1070, a private citizen can compell under threat of lawsuit an agent, official, or law enforcement to demand that brown person prove he or she is a legal citizen.

That will result in unprecedent voter suppression of Hispanics in Arizona, almost guaranteeing the perpetuation of Republican power, which is concentrated in the hands of the White voters.

–Cobra

Cobra, your obvious animosity against White voters aside, the point is that the majority of our illegals are coming from Mexico. And no matter what race they are or what country they come from, entering the country illegally is breaking the law. What part of that can’t you understand? If someone illegally slipped into your house and you didn’t notice it for a while, would you feel that they should be allowed to stay, since they’d already been there a while? Can you answer that?

Cobra.

My opinion, but I think you’re turning towards talking points and hyperbole now. I did not claim SCOTUS split decisions are ‘just’. I stated they are binding law. Many decisions by SCOTUS are not supported by many. I’m just stating you can complain about it by the way you feel about it, but it’s law. It’s also more open to be changed with future mix of judges based on how deep the split decision was. But there are 100′s of decisions like that. We can complain about them, but when it comes down to law enforcement and legal system, it’s the law. I may even ‘feel’ there are some decisions that are ‘unjust’ that you feel are ‘just’. Law enforcement and legal system just doesn’t care. It matters to them (and for chaos sake) that it’s binding law.

I feel your Standing at the polls example is hyperbole. Maybe even a talking point. What SB1070 – Section, 11-1051 states it does NOT create a right of citizen to sue TO ENFORCE the new Arizona immigration provisions, such as 11-1051(B). The suit is available ONLY for policies of non-enforcement of federal immigration LAW

It reads “official or agency that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws” Adopts or implements a policy…

11-1051(A) does not require any police officer on the street to do anything. Instead, 11-1051(A) restricts leadership (city councils, police chiefs)—those who articulate policies—from limiting what police officers in the field do.

This reading is confirmed by 11-1051(H), which makes liable an agency or official that implements or adopts a “policy,” and imposes a penalty “for each day the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action.” Individual enforcement DECISIONS by police/sheriffs are NOT “policies” under this law, because they do not “remain in effect” for any period of time after they are carried out.

I’ve read this polls argument before and am not sure how it gets propagated. This is why it’s crtically important for sb1070 to be challenged.

RazorsEdge:

“What SB1070 – Section, 11-1051 states it does NOT create a right of citizen to sue TO ENFORCE the new Arizona immigration provisions, such as 11-1051(B). The suit is available ONLY for policies of non-enforcement of federal immigration LAW”

No it doesn’t, since Jan Brewer herself states that SB1070 “mirrors Federal Immigration Law”.
“Brewer, April 30: Our law mirrors federal law. So, why is it bad for Arizona to mirror federal law? No one was crying out in the wilderness about the federal law being wrong or racial profiling. I don’t get it. It’s spin.”

From Factcheck.org:

“To a degree, she’s right. Arizona’s new statute contains provisions that criminalize, at the state level, certain conduct that’s already a violation of federal immigration law. For instance, immigrants are required under both state and federal laws to carry their alien registration documents or other applicable records at all times – in federal law that’s under 8 USC sec.1304 and 8 USC sec. 1306.”

“Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer’s command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.

This prosecutor, David Iglesias, is a prosecutor no more. When he refused to fabricate charges of illegal voting among immigrants, his firing was personally ordered by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, under orders from his boss, Karl Rove.”

http://www.gregpalast.com/behind-the-arizona-immigration-lawgop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election/

This is the same Jan Brewer who just signed SB1070 into law, and will likely try to sign the anti-anchor baby law into effect this fall, both with the hands of alleged neo-nazi hugger and white supremacist email forwarder State Senator Russell Pearce.

I will agree with you that SB1070 must be challenged. A Justice Department Lawsuit would do wonders to advance this.

–Cobra

Cobra,

I appreciate the conversation. I do. But I find it hyperbole because I can’t locate any of what you’re claiming in the actual bill. You now claim that it’s currently illegal for an:

An immigrant without alien registration documents or other applicable records at ALL TIMES” is in violation of Federal Immigration Law. That’s TRUE. It’s true before sb1070 and after sb1070 (if all or part of bill survives). That’s an important part of this. SB1070 has NOTHING to do with the fact that’s it’s currently illegal for immigrant not to carry ID. The hyperbole is that this is tied to SB1070. The argument is not with 1070 but with 8 USC sec.1304 and 8 USC sec. 1306.

In fact SB1070 goes even further to protect legal immigrants in AZ that don’t have ID with them. More so than 8 USC sec.1304 and 8 USC sec. 1306.

Section 13-1509(F) in sb1070 limits the statute (offense to not having carried ID) to those who are not authorized to live in the country. Meaning “This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization
from the federal government to remain in the United States.” In fact, I could see how the Fed government would have issue with this because it ‘softens’ existing Fed law.

Somehow you tied the fact it’s currently illegal for immigrants not to carry ID to a citizen can now bring forth a lawsuit against “agencies and officials” who aren’t “vigorously enforcing” federal immigration law.

Not sure how my using the exact language from the AZ bill does not help you refute that a citizen can do that or compell an officer under threat of lawsuit to investigate. BTW, Police Officers in the bill are indemnified )11-1051 K)

Again, SB1070 11-1051- 11-1051(H) does NOT create a citizen right to sue in order TO FORCE ONE TO ENFORCE the new Arizona immigration provisions. The suit is ONLY AVAILABLE for non-enforcement of federal immigration law with/by the only defendants would be, is a governmental official or agency, which 2) ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY restricting enforcement (police/sheriffs) of federal immigration law to less than what is permitted by federal law.

11-1051(A) restricts leadership (city councils, police chiefs)— or those who articulate POLICIES—from limiting what police/sheriffs in the field do.

Not ‘vigorously enforcing”, BUT restricting enforcement through stated POLICY. This is important distinction. There would be no leadership, governmental official or agency adopting or implementing policy in line at the polls or at voter registration rallies. Policy, policy,policy. This is intended to trump any municipal sanctuary city status in AZ cities and towns. In fact 11-1051 section mentions 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 1373 AND 1644 which are communication to ICE (to/from ICE) codes. A citizen standing in line at a Poll can’t compel a police officer to check status under threat of law.

You do realize that a citizen TODAY, before sb1070 can request an officer at the polls to check someones immigration status and the officer may state they can’t because it’s their force’s policy not to check immigration status (or even decline if they chose to. It’s in their discretion . BUT THAT IS regardless of sb1070 being law or not.

SB1070 does not change any of that. It does change a citizen’s options to sue ONLY if the police officer stated that their force has a policy not to check immigration status or is under orders not to check immigration status.

The police officer with or without sb1070 has full discretion. If they declined a citizen’s request to check immigration status in line at a Poll, officer can just laugh it off or decline to do so. There’s is not threat of suit even with SB1070 (full discretion) UNLESS and ONLY if the officer is under orders (policy) not to do so and stated they are under such orders back to the citizen. Even then, the officer can decline if under orders through a policy not to check under no threat of lawsuit. If fact the ‘suspected’ immigrant can continue to vote or register to vote uninhibited.

It’s only a stated agency, city, town, leadership POLICY that can trigger option for lawsuit. NOT the action or inaction of law enforcement of checking ID’s at a Poll or registration rally.

Which brings us back to what’s already true before SB1070