Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Life isn't fair. All states have major issues to deal with. It doesn't mean they can break the law and assume new powers to do so.

Whether they are breaking the law and assuming new powers is the issue which the SCOTUS will determine.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
So first of all I'm going to state my position against this law. It essentially lets you racial profile freely without any sort of reprimand.

Sure thing, go ahead and ignore the fact that the law specifically prohibits racial or ethnic profiling.
officers may not solely consider race, color, or national origin:
We've had a multitude of threads about this. The people against it are not against overstepping of federal rules (these same folks have no problem saying that CA rules on pot should override federal rules), they simply want to allow more illegal immigration and are against anything that curbs it.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
funny, that exactly what the cop asked me when i got a speeding ticket last year. show me your license, insurance and reg. in other words show me your papers!!!

Oh, sorry sir. Your registration was expired. We'll have to throw you in jail until this is sorted out.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,022
2,590
136
Whether they are breaking the law and assuming new powers is the issue which the SCOTUS will determine.
You are absolutely right. I'm just stating my position on how I see the legal side of things.

Law aside, legal or not, on the ethical side of things, this law is appaling for the reasons I stated above. Even if Arizona has the right to ask people to always carry papers or be arrested on the spot, doesn't mean they should be doing so. Certainly there are other ways to reduce the prevalence of illegal immigrants in arizona other than racial profiling, scare mongering, and the creation of a police state for legal and illegal immigrants alike?


Legal immigrants have to have valid current documentation on them at all times already -- by federal law.
Proof?
And again, its the legal citizens who happen to be dark skinned that I am fearful of. A guy is arrested because he looks like an illegal alien, he claims he is a citizen but doesn't have papers (because legal citizens certainly do not have to carry any sort of ID all the time), so he is arrested. He sits in jail overnight, maybe 2 days before his family finds him and delivers such papers. And then he is released, and ALWAYS carries papers because of fear. Again, I'm talking about a legal citizen here.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Sure thing, go ahead and ignore the fact that the law specifically prohibits racial or ethnic profiling. We've had a multitude of threads about this. The people against it are not against overstepping of federal rules (these same folks have no problem saying that CA rules on pot should override federal rules), they simply want to allow more illegal immigration and are against anything that curbs it.

I think you mean they dont see any difference between illegal and legal immigration.

This is why they say the Republicans are "anti-immigrant" when they support laws against illegal immigration.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Proof?
And again, its the legal citizens who happen to be dark skinned that I am fearful of. A guy is arrested because he looks like an illegal alien, he claims he is a citizen but doesn't have papers (because legal citizens certainly do not have to carry any sort of ID all the time), so he is arrested. He sits in jail overnight, maybe 2 days before his family finds him and delivers such papers. And then he is released, and ALWAYS carries papers because of fear. Again, I'm talking about a legal citizen here.

Do you have any evidence of this happening with either the Arizona or Alabama law?
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
You are absolutely right. I'm just stating my position on how I see the legal side of things.

Law aside, legal or not, on the ethical side of things, this law is appaling for the reasons I stated above. Even if Arizona has the right to ask people to always carry papers or be arrested on the spot, doesn't mean they should be doing so. Certainly there are other ways to reduce the prevalence of illegal immigrants in arizona other than racial profiling, scare mongering, and the creation of a police state for legal and illegal immigrants alike?



Proof?
And again, its the legal citizens who happen to be dark skinned that I am fearful of. A guy is arrested because he looks like an illegal alien, he claims he is a citizen but doesn't have papers (because legal citizens certainly do not have to carry any sort of ID all the time), so he is arrested. He sits in jail overnight, maybe 2 days before his family finds him and delivers such papers. And then he is released, and ALWAYS carries papers because of fear. Again, I'm talking about a legal citizen here.

You realize you are wasting your effort right?
I had this same argument with them when the law was first passed.
If Arizonians want to turn their state into a fascist, ass backwards, redneck playground so be it.
I will simply laugh at them like I do Floridians and avoid the place.
 

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
Proof?
And again, its the legal citizens who happen to be dark skinned that I am fearful of. A guy is arrested because he looks like an illegal alien, he claims he is a citizen but doesn't have papers (because legal citizens certainly do not have to carry any sort of ID all the time), so he is arrested. He sits in jail overnight, maybe 2 days before his family finds him and delivers such papers. And then he is released, and ALWAYS carries papers because of fear. Again, I'm talking about a legal citizen here.


Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1304 of the U.S. Code

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

Challenge this:
Roberts pointed out that under the Arizona law, police stops are not made for immigration reasons, but for violations of other laws.

So a law-abiding citizen won't be stop, thus won't go to jail. A non law-abiding citizen will be stop and go to jail anyways, but now with two counts instead of one.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101

Actually, I have to correct my earlier statement. Resident aliens have to have their documentation on them at all time. Immigrants who become naturalized citizens do not.

http://www.lawofficeshill.com/FAQs.html

If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times.

A guy is arrested because he looks like an illegal alien

Go read the actual law instead of just repeating what idiots in the media say. The law prohibits profiling, and it does not permit anyone to be arrested simply because they "look like an illegal alien". The police have to already be in "lawful contact" with someone (ie, they've pulled you over or arrested you for a violation of the law), and only then they can check on the legal status if they reasonably believe someone to be here illegally. In other words, they can't simply ask people for papers without first having a reason to detain them.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Proof?
And again, its the legal citizens who happen to be dark skinned that I am fearful of. A guy is arrested because he looks like an illegal alien, he claims he is a citizen but doesn't have papers (because legal citizens certainly do not have to carry any sort of ID all the time), so he is arrested. He sits in jail overnight, maybe 2 days before his family finds him and delivers such papers. And then he is released, and ALWAYS carries papers because of fear. Again, I'm talking about a legal citizen here.

"We are not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case," Verrilli responded.

If this was happening, or was likely to happen, why are the feds saying racial profiling is not any part of their challenge to the law?

"All that has to do with immigration law is whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you. It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not," he said.

If a person was stopped for speeding or drunk driving and a check with immigration showed he was here illegally, I see no problem with holding him.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,611
47,219
136
hahahah You're starting to weasel out already? How many of your posts should I go dig up where you said the law would get tossed? Some sections might get tossed, but it looks like the law overall might get upheld. Expert indeed :p

I'm not weaseling out of anything. I will be surprised if this provision is upheld in the end, and might very well be wrong on that one. There are 4 major parts of the bill under dispute, and only 1 of those 4 seems to be getting much support from the USSC, so large swaths of this law will likely still be invalidated.

In all fairness I was referring to the contentious provisions of the law being tossed, I'm sure there are other parts of the bill that aren't in dispute at all that might stick around. I've never claimed to be any kind of legal expert, I just base my posts on what other legal experts say instead of what I wish they said.

EDIT: I for one will admit when I am wrong. It would be nice if you would do the same sometimes...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1304 of the U.S. Code

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

Challenge this:
Roberts pointed out that under the Arizona law, police stops are not made for immigration reasons, but for violations of other laws.

So a law-abiding citizen won't be stop, thus won't go to jail. A non law-abiding citizen will be stop and go to jail anyways, but now with two counts instead of one.

So why would a citizen be subject to a second charge? Well... I guess you mean an alien... ok...

I see Roberts' point and if his analysis of when 'stops' are made is true then fine... but, IF it can be shown that the stop was made cuz the 'stopee' was stopped with no probable cause which resulted in the jailing of the alien... I presume Roberts would then argue that the alien in this case might should not have been stopped but what do you do with them if they are illegal aliens.... hmmmmm
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
So first of all I'm going to state my position against this law. It essentially lets you racial profile freely without any sort of reprimand.

When asked, you are required to present ID to law enforcement.

Why should illegal immigrants be exempt from that law?
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,022
2,590
136
The law prohibits profiling, and it does not permit anyone to be arrested simply because they "look like an illegal alien". The police have to already be in "lawful contact" with someone (ie, they've pulled you over or arrested you for a violation of the law), and only then they can check on the legal status if they reasonably believe someone to be here illegally. In other words, they can't simply ask people for papers without first having a reason to detain them.

I think you are being a little naive if you assume all "lawful contact" will be because cops are catching people in the act of crime. Suddenly in your eyes the police are the honest and true upholders of the law, never bending the rules, telling false stories to accomplish goals, and always trying to protect the citizen they are interacting with. No, the law is very vague as to what constitutes lawful contact, probable suspicion and etc. Cops literally can make up anything as probable suspicion (ie i "thought" he was walking a little unsteadily so I stopped him or I "thought" he was speeding so I stopped him) and is already a fairly common practice already (just ask any of your black friends and I'm sure they'll tell you a story or two about bullshit stops by cops, just so they could take a look at who's in the car and potentially run IDs for warrants).
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
You are absolutely right. I'm just stating my position on how I see the legal side of things.


Proof? Requirement of being issued a permit to be in the US as a foriegn national or a legal resident who is not a citizen.


And again, its the legal citizens who happen to be dark skinned that I am fearful of. A guy is arrested because he looks like an illegal alien, he claims he is a citizen but doesn't have papers (because legal citizens certainly do not have to carry any sort of ID all the time), so he is arrested. He sits in jail overnight, maybe 2 days before his family finds him and delivers such papers. And then he is released, and ALWAYS carries papers because of fear. Again, I'm talking about a legal citizen here.

ICE requirements - Arizona is stating that you must follow the Federal rules.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,619
10,935
136
This old Democrat hopes the USSC upholds Arizona's law to defend out borders from the hordes of illegal immigrants.
I'm also glad that it looks like the invasion is slowing...
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Regardless of what legal arguments the Supreme Court uses to justify what is essentially a political issue, it doesn't make to restrain most of what Arizona is trying to do as a matter of policy.

This isn't like some state trying to counter federal race protections or environmental protections. It's the official policy of the US government to keep illegals out. (Even though clearly many of our politicians don't want to enforce it as a practical matter.) There's no good reason Arizona shouldn't be able to further federal policy. The main source of objections is people who basically want open borders.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,611
47,219
136
Regardless of what legal arguments the Supreme Court uses to justify what is essentially a political issue, it doesn't make to restrain most of what Arizona is trying to do as a matter of policy.

This isn't like some state trying to counter federal race protections or environmental protections. It's the official policy of the US government to keep illegals out. (Even though clearly many of our politicians don't want to enforce it as a practical matter.) There's no good reason Arizona shouldn't be able to further federal policy. The main source of objections is people who basically want open borders.

That is NOT federal policy. Federal policy most certainly is to control illegal immigration, but it has a large number of other considerations which affect when, how, and to what extent it enforces this policy. The idea that it is somehow 'EVERYBODY OUT' just doesn't reflect reality.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
That is NOT federal policy. Federal policy most certainly is to control illegal immigration, but it has a large number of other considerations which affect when, how, and to what extent it enforces this policy. The idea that it is somehow 'EVERYBODY OUT' just doesn't reflect reality.

Of course it's official policy to control entry into the country. I don't disagree that on a practical level it is not enforced. Both parties have controlling elements that seem to want illegal immigration to happen. But it is the policy on the books.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Regardless of what legal arguments the Supreme Court uses to justify what is essentially a political issue, it doesn't make to restrain most of what Arizona is trying to do as a matter of policy.

This isn't like some state trying to counter federal race protections or environmental protections. It's the official policy of the US government to keep illegals out. (Even though clearly many of our politicians don't want to enforce it as a practical matter.) There's no good reason Arizona shouldn't be able to further federal policy. The main source of objections is people who basically want open borders.

You're short shrifting the legal/constitutional issues related to the Supremacy Clause and preemption doctrine here and are trying to argue that these are not issues at all, and that the entire thing should turn on political views. You don't even know what you're talking about legally speaking and I think it's unwise to suggest that the Constitutionality of this should take a back seat to politics. The political opinion that you express is not of constitutional significance; it's just what you desire based on your feelings about illegal immigration, and you don't even seem to want the SCOTUS to call this on a proper Constitutional analysis.

The SCOTUS may well vote 8-1 or even 9-0 to uphold or ditch various portions of this statute. The OP article even mentions Sotomayor apparently crossing party lines in favor of upholding at least one part of it. We're used to decisions breaking down on party lines because of certain highly publicized opinions like Bush v. Gore but that is not what happens in even the majority of decisions the Court makes.

- wolf