Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,613
47,222
136
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.

But it's not the policy that's on the books. There is tons of discretion written into every law for how it would be implemented.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
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.

And the part youre leaving out is, if he is legal, and forgot his license, they could pull it up at the station and be done with him. Give him a ticket and let him go. Here in AZ all LEO have access to AZDL info, in full color, on their laptops in the car.

And can you please quote which part of 1070 specifically, and I'll quote you, "It essentially lets you racial profile freely without any sort of reprimand."? The bill is only 4 or 5 pages long shouldnt be hard for you to find.
 
Last edited:

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
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).

This objection boils down to: "bad cops might nab illegal aliens that they should have ignored."

I don't buy that as a valid reason not to have the AZ law. Bad cops could just shoot the illegal alien then get the crack-sprinkling vial from their ankle holster, just like they would for an American citizen. "He was comin' right at me!"
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
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.
Do you know the difference between normative and positive thinking? I'm not saying the legal issues SHOULD take a backseat to political motivations. At the Supreme Court level, however, I believe that IS what happens. I'm not persuaded by your condescension. You can argue that the thinkers behind legal realism didn't know what they were talking about legally speaking either, but it wouldn't be very effective. (And it's not just Bush v. Gore.)

it's just what you desire based on your feelings about illegal immigration
You're engaging in fallacious reasoning by attacking my motives.

Your posts have been more emotional lately.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
This objection boils down to: "bad cops might nab illegal aliens that they should have ignored."

I don't buy that as a valid reason not to have the AZ law. Bad cops could just shoot the illegal alien then get the crack-sprinkling vial from their ankle holster, just like they would for an American citizen. "He was comin' right at me!"

It seems to me that the problem of bad cops would is not unique to the Arizona immigration law. And therefore the law does not introduce any new problem.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,463
9,779
136
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.

existing federal law already requires legal aliens to carry some form of identification with them at all times, IIRC.

go to any other country and it's the exact same way.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,623
10,939
136
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.

It damned well better be official policy to control entry into the country...and it SHOULD be policy to control/stop ILLEGAL immigration.

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

You'd think that as over-burdened as the Border Patrol is...the US Government would appreciate some help in controlling the invasion of illegal immigrants.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,452
6,878
136
Yeh, I'm trying to recall all of the anti-illegal immigration legislation coming out of the Repub controlled HOR and bills introduced from the Repubs in the Senate. There must be a whole crapload of legislation coming from them to support State's rights to go after Big Agra and all those other big businesses that encourage and exploit illegals to work for them. I'm sure all the Repub legislators up there are really working as hard as Reagan and Bush did to get rid of all the millions of illegals that crossed the borders on their watch.

Amnesty, anyone? lol
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Do you know the difference between normative and positive thinking? I'm not saying the legal issues SHOULD take a backseat to political motivations. At the Supreme Court level, however, I believe that IS what happens. I'm not persuaded by your condescension. You can argue that the thinkers behind legal realism didn't know what they were talking about legally speaking either, but it wouldn't be very effective. (And it's not just Bush v. Gore.)


You're engaging in fallacious reasoning by attacking my motives.

Your posts have been more emotional lately.

Yup, I know the difference. Both positions were taken in your post. First, the positive part:

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.

And I stated my disagreement with that, or partial disagreement. SCOTUS rulings do not always break down on "party lines." Not even close. That is perception, not reality.

Then, the normative part:

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.

Where instead of making an argument about what is or isn't Constitutional, you express the opinion that "there's no good reason Arizona shouldn't be able to further federal policy."

No good reason, unless the Constitution says otherwise, right?

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you're the one interested in politics over the law here.

Incidentally, I know very little about pre-emption doctrine. Not something I've studied much and it's fairly complicated. Too often people seem to prefer a Constitutional ruling that comports with their political view. We all say we revere the Constitution, but we always seem prefer the ruling to favor our political position without really knowing the applicable doctrine or precedent. If one doesn't know the law but wants the Court to follow it, it seems like the best thing to say is that you don't know the law but want the Court to uphold the Constitution above all else and leave it at that, assuming one really wants the Constitution upheld over a desired political result, that is. YMMV of course.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,788
26,489
136
Best thing ever if the states finally get the right to enforce federal law that the current executive doesn't want to enforce!
You realize, of course, that border enforcement is being more vigorously pursued under the current administration that at any previous time in our nation's history? At no time in the past have as many border agents been deployed, been more heavily armed, had more resources available, or had more authorities at their disposal than they do today.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,788
26,489
136
Yeh, I'm trying to recall all of the anti-illegal immigration legislation coming out of the Repub controlled HOR and bills introduced from the Repubs in the Senate. There must be a whole crapload of legislation coming from them to support State's rights to go after Big Agra and all those other big businesses that encourage and exploit illegals to work for them. I'm sure all the Repub legislators up there are really working as hard as Reagan and Bush did to get rid of all the millions of illegals that crossed the borders on their watch.

Amnesty, anyone? lol
Even the Arizona law leaves employers alone. Can't be hurting their buddies.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
And I stated my disagreement with that, or partial disagreement. SCOTUS rulings do not always break down on "party lines." Not even close.
You haven't really given a rebuttal to legal realism. Legal realism isn't simply about arguing that all cases are decided based on party lines. In other words, that's a straw man.

Where instead of making an argument about what is or isn't Constitutional, you express the opinion that "there's no good reason Arizona shouldn't be able to further federal policy."

No good reason, unless the Constitution says otherwise, right?

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you're the one interested in politics over the law here.

Incidentally, I know very little about pre-emption doctrine. Not something I've studied much and it's fairly complicated. Too often people seem to prefer a Constitutional ruling that comports with their political view. We all say we revere the Constitution, but we always seem prefer the ruling to favor our political position without really knowing the applicable doctrine or precedent. If one doesn't know the law but wants the Court to follow it, it seems like the best thing to say is that you don't know the law but want the Court to uphold the Constitution above all else. YMMV of course.

- wolf

There are times when I don't express myself clearly, but here I think you're making assumptions about what I posted. I will just cut to the chase about the role I think the Constitution plays in this and other issues.

The Constitution is not the ultimate authority of public policy. Other considerations come first. (Of course they do, otherwise nobody would be able to write a constitution in the first place.) With that said, I don't think the Constitution should just be ignored. The rule of law is important. The Supreme Court is going to do their thing. The majority (perhaps even unanimously) will give legal justifications for their decision as they should.

As citizens though, our thinking shouldn't stop there. The Constitution can be and has been amended. Even if it's not, we can still support modified versions of the Arizona legislation. The real question is whether it makes sense to tell a state that they can't enforce federal policies and even more fundamentally whether the US should make a legitimate effort to stop and even deport illegals.

An analogy would be if this were a discussion on gun control. If I argue that it doesn't make sense for individuals to own firearms, saying that the Second Amendment gives people that right doesn't really address the policy issue. (Nor does suggesting that someone somehow lacks authority to discuss the issue because they don't want to have a discussion over the relevant case law.)
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
You realize, of course, that border enforcement is being more vigorously pursued under the current administration that at any previous time in our nation's history? At no time in the past have as many border agents been deployed, been more heavily armed, had more resources available, or had more authorities at their disposal than they do today.

They have to deploy a lot since Obama and Holder armed the Mexican gangs so well and they're killing our border agents. Fast N Furious anyone?
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Republicans on the ussc sure have a twisted way of twisting things to make some twisted point that is not a legitimate point in the first place.

So I ask.... Would every person stopped by police be forced to prove legal citizenship?
I mean, an illegal French man would not look Hispanic... now would he?
Would he be scrutinized by police?

And how far could this go?
Americans of late seem to be damn friendly to the idea of giving up rights for short term gain.

Today the issue Hispanic-looking drivers. Tomorrow, drug checks?

U all know illegal drugs are a huge American society problem as well.
Sooooo kiddies, how will you react when the cops pull you over, you that average American citizen, and insist on strip searching you, mommie, as well as your 3 year old for possible hidden drugs?
Why would they do that?.... Because the ussc said they can.
Also... for the good of the country i.e. the war on drugs.

Yes... Be careful what u wish for, especially when rights are sacrificed in exchange for short term gain.
Many Americans have died in wars for our freedoms. Think twice before tossing all that sacrifice out the window. There are sane ways of dealing with the issue of illegals.
Only retarded lawmakers like Jan of AZ would expose their stupidity by creating such laws, supporting such laws, unable to think through the full consequences.

So sad.... we seem to have a lot of AZ Jan's out there.
But I don't blame her. How can you put blame on that retarded office holder?
I blame the voting public that has lost their ability to reason, and think logically before pulling that lever.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
So I ask.... Would every person stopped by police be forced to prove legal citizenship?
I mean, an illegal French man would not look Hispanic... now would he?
Would he be scrutinized by police?

The profiling thing seems like a red herring. It's not really directly related to this legislation. If the illegal French man were pulled over, he would have to show a driver's license or passport. So in effect he'd be asked to do the same thing as an illegal Mexican.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Today the issue Hispanic-looking drivers. Tomorrow, drug checks?

U all know illegal drugs are a huge American society problem as well.
Sooooo kiddies, how will you react when the cops pull you over, you that average American citizen, and insist on strip searching you, mommie, as well as your 3 year old for possible hidden drugs?
Why would they do that?.... Because the ussc said they can.
Also... for the good of the country i.e. the war on drugs. .

Last time I checked a cop can already stop and arrest you for DUI.

Posting under the influence is still safe though ;)

Note: I'm pro-legalization myself, though the only drug I use is caffeine. Prohibition hasn't worked. Legalize and tax drugs. DUI would still be illegal though of course.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,452
6,878
136
Even the Arizona law leaves employers alone. Can't be hurting their buddies.

Well, by having Jan scream on about policing illegals, her hissy fits are, by design, drawing attention toward the Obama Admin as the culprit and away from her big business buddies, while these businesses just keep on making more and higher profit while knowingly breaking the law. By right, Jan should apply just as much enforcement on her business buddies as she is putting on the illegals, but oh no, she'd rather play this two-faced game just to lay the blame of "her" problem with illegals at Obama's feet.

All the while, Jan's business buddies are keeping completely silent and under the radar of public scrutiny as to their major and integral role in exacerbating the illegal immigration problem.

And good 'ol Jan is doing her best to keep that aspect of the problem as far from the public's minds as possible.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
The cynic in me says that the liberals on the court who appear to agree with the Arizona law are just saying they agree to get the Latino community upset and drive them further away from the GOP.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Even the Arizona law leaves employers alone. Can't be hurting their buddies.

So, you think private employers should be required to verify immigration status.

But police and government organizations (such as schools) should not be allowed to do so?

o_O
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
But .. but... what happened to all those brilliant 'experts' around here who claimed that it was a slam dunk that the law would be tossed? (you know who you are!)

I hope the court upholds this law and proves our "constitutional scholar in chief" wrong ...... yet again.

Nothing is a slam dunk with the current court configuration...they have been working to dismantle civil liberties for quite a while, I have no idea why anyone is surprised by this.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Link

Federal Law:

Responsibilities
  • Obey all federal, state, and local laws.
  • Pay federal, state, and local income taxes.
  • Register with the Selective Service (U.S. Armed Forces), if you are a male between ages 18 and 26. See Register With the Selective Service for instructions.
  • Maintain your immigration status.
  • Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all times.
  • Give your new address in writing to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) within 10 days of each time you move. See Give Your New Address to DHS for instructions.


If you are not a Green Card holder - you are required to have your passport & visa available at all times.