Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Which is against the law which we're discussing, and a failure on the part of the cops, not the law. Otherwise, asking for ID when an individual has been lawfully detained - for instance, while pulled over for speeding - is hardly a violation of civil rights.

Of course, driving is a privilege, not a right, and you're required by law to have an operator's permit on your person while operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

Which brings us back to the situations where the law seems to require ID for people on foot.

And it ignores the entire issue to begin with, and the reason the law is going to get shot down. Namely that the federal gov't has sole authority over immigration issues.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

And thinking about it in those terms, I have a lot bigger imposition on me in not being able to go a lot of places in southern Arizona without worrying for my life, than someone who might have to show an ID once in a great while when getting pulled over.

Kind of a Bob centric way to look at it...and not the way to show that you're a great judge of whether someone is touchy or not.

I'll use an example I think you might be able to relate to as I think youre from Minnesota. In the twin cities, most people not being able to go to north Minneapolis, due to the danger it might present, is not a big deal. However, I think most would be upset if driving around their Burnsville neighborhood...they were stopped, didn't have their ID, were detained and taken downtown Minneapolis. Being detained is a big deal if its you who is consistently being singled out for detention.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Yeah, but legally speaking, one is a systematic failure to police, the other is a violation of civil rights. The former may be worse, but it also generally isn't actionable in a court of law (under most circumstances, if you get murdered, then good luck to your estate if they try to sue the cops for failing to prevent said murder). The latter is a slam dunk case if there's even a hint of racial profiling.

Someone being touchy is now a violation of civil rights? I don't get it.

Of course if there's a hint, or more, of racial profiling, then there'll be trouble. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Someone being touchy is now a violation of civil rights? I don't get it.

Someone being unlawfully detained, even momentarily, is a violation of civil rights. If you are pulled over and the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion that you violated some law or ordinance, your civil rights have been violated even if he lets you go 2 minutes later.

Racial profiling merely makes it easier to prove.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Of course, driving is a privilege, not a right, and you're required by law to have an operator's permit on your person while operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

Which brings us back to the situations where the law seems to require ID for people on foot.

And it ignores the entire issue to begin with, and the reason the law is going to get shot down. Namely that the federal gov't has sole authority over immigration issues.

Reallly???

Then how come there are sancutary cities? That is a direct violation of federal law. How come local cops help out with federal kidnapping charges? Should they just sit back?

The states are allowed to make their own policies as long as they don't contradict federal law. The AZ bill was written to specifically pass that test.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Kind of a Bob centric way to look at it...and not the way to show that you're a great judge of whether someone is touchy or not.

I'll use an example I think you might be able to relate to as I think youre from Minnesota. In the twin cities, most people not being able to go to north Minneapolis, due to the danger it might present, is not a big deal. However, I think most would be upset if driving around their Burnsville neighborhood...they were stopped, didn't have their ID, were detained and taken downtown Minneapolis. Being detained is a big deal if its you who is consistently being singled out for detention.

Aren't we all self-centric to one extent or another? At least I'm aware of it.

I didn't realize that there are parts of north Minneapolis where the federal government has banned people from going to? I'm pretty sure there isn't. Whereas, in an example I'm sure you've seen me before, a huge chunk of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, consisting of many many square miles, have been shut down to any public access due to the border problems. And I believe there are other similar areas, while also being many areas that are a bit more like your north Minneapolis example, though I doubt there's entities controlling large parts of Minneapolis, the way the drug cartels control parts of southern Arizona.

And if you're consistently singled out for detention, either the police are breaking the law with profiling, or you are chronically doing things that bring you under suspicion, whether driving with expired tags, driving erratically, or whatever.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Someone being unlawfully detained, even momentarily, is a violation of civil rights. If you are pulled over and the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion that you violated some law or ordinance, your civil rights have been violated even if he lets you go 2 minutes later.

Racial profiling merely makes it easier to prove.

ok, we're going in circles. Under your example, it's profiling, and that's of course something people could go after the police for. Stop bringing up an example that doesn't apply please. If the police profile under SB1070, they'll be sued real fast and it will end, one way or another. If they aren't profiling, and pull over for reasonable cause of some sort, then your example simply doesn't apply.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Reallly???

Then how come there are sancutary cities? That is a direct violation of federal law. How come local cops help out with federal kidnapping charges? Should they just sit back?

The states are allowed to make their own policies as long as they don't contradict federal law. The AZ bill was written to specifically pass that test.

Sanctuary cities are simply areas where the feds have chosen for whatever reason not to get involved. Same thing with medicinal marijuana states; the feds could always come in and arrest the buyers and sellers, they just choose not to. My somewhat educated guess is, if they wanted to, they could get the state laws on either issue ruled unconstitutional for being contradictory to federal law, as well.

There are areas of law where the states are allowed to fill in gaps, and then there are areas of law which is considered "federally pre-empted" - meaning the feds have sole domain over the entire area of law and state laws are going to get tossed no matter what. Immigration is the latter.

Arizona's best chance in my mind is saying this is simple criminal enforcement, not an immigration issue. But I don't think a judge will buy that.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

ok, we're going in circles. Under your example, it's profiling, and that's of course something people could go after the police for. Stop bringing up an example that doesn't apply please. If the police profile under SB1070, they'll be sued real fast and it will end, one way or another. If they aren't profiling, and pull over for reasonable cause of some sort, then your example simply doesn't apply.

Well, obviously we're all talking about hypotheticals at this point. You seem to believe the law will never be abused and that it would be wrong to shoot it down on other legal technicalities (such as fed vs. state powers).

I happen to think it's ripe for abuse, and regardless will get shot down on one or more technicality.

I'm all for stiffer border patrols and for the authorities to stop turning a blind eye to the situation. I just don't think this particular law is the correct or legal way to do that.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

There are areas of law where the states are allowed to fill in gaps, and then there are areas of law which is considered "federally pre-empted" - meaning the feds have sole domain over the entire area of law and state laws are going to get tossed no matter what. Immigration is the latter.

Time will tell whether that's true. Of course if the feds are going to be consistent, they'll be filing hundreds if not thousands of other lawsuits around the country to deal with many existing laws that impinge if immigration is really a place states have no role to play.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Time will tell whether that's true. Of course if the feds are going to be consistent, they'll be filing hundreds if not thousands of other lawsuits around the country to deal with many existing laws that impinge if immigration is really a place states have no role to play.

Even I never said they're going to be consistent. Though the amount of money they'd have to spend to do so would certainly be a boon to the economy. Maybe they should market it as a stimulus bill...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Well, obviously we're all talking about hypotheticals at this point. You seem to believe the law will never be abused and that it would be wrong to shoot it down on other legal technicalities (such as fed vs. state powers).

I happen to think it's ripe for abuse, and regardless will get shot down on one or more technicality.

I'm all for stiffer border patrols and for the authorities to stop turning a blind eye to the situation. I just don't think this particular law is the correct or legal way to do that.

No, I've never remotely said I don't think laws are abused. This whole problem is because of abuse of federal law, by the feds. Of course there will be problems in applying, as we don't live in a perfect world. But it's silly to think that with the level of scrutiny this has and will have, that if there's any substantive abuse, Arizona isn't going to get absolutely shellacked.

As for legalities, I think there's arguments on both sides, some better than others, and the courts will decide the merits.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Even I never said they're going to be consistent. Though the amount of money they'd have to spend to do so would certainly be a boon to the economy. Maybe they should market it as a stimulus bill...

The feds blowing money on hundreds or thousands of lawsuits would not be a boon to the economy. But given how widely Obama threw stimulus dollars, I wouldn't be shocked to see such an argument made.

It's not by chance that Obama is going after Arizona, rather than Rhode Island, which the Boston paper recently had a big article on how they basically do what the Arizona law is planning to do. Politics are a major driving force in what is done and who it is done to.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Of course, driving is a privilege, not a right, and you're required by law to have an operator's permit on your person while operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

Which brings us back to the situations where the law seems to require ID for people on foot.

Which is where I go back to an individual being lawfully detained.

And it ignores the entire issue to begin with, and the reason the law is going to get shot down. Namely that the federal gov't has sole authority over immigration issues.

And when the federal government refuses to exercise said authority to the detriment of individual states? Oh well.

So the argument goes like this.
AZ: We'll take care of this.
Feds: Hey, that's our job!
AZ: But you're not doing it.
Feds: Doesn't matter, it's still our job, not yours.
AZ: But we need you to start doing your job.
Feds: No.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

There are areas of law where the states are allowed to fill in gaps, and then there are areas of law which is considered "federally pre-empted" - meaning the feds have sole domain over the entire area of law and state laws are going to get tossed no matter what. Immigration is the latter.

From what I've read about this law I think it'll get upheld. So I'll make you a bet. After the Supreme Court decision (because I'm sure it'll wind up there) whoever loses has to come on here and tell the world that they were wrong and they should have listened to the wisdom of the other person.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

And when the federal government refuses to exercise said authority to the detriment of individual states? Oh well.

So the argument goes like this.
AZ: We'll take care of this.
Feds: Hey, that's our job!
AZ: But you're not doing it.
Feds: Doesn't matter, it's still our job, not yours.
AZ: But we need you to start doing your job.
Feds: No.

Yep. And nothing AZ or any other state can do about it. Sad, but true.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

From what I've read about this law I think it'll get upheld. So I'll make you a bet. After the Supreme Court decision (because I'm sure it'll wind up there) whoever loses has to come on here and tell the world that they were wrong and they should have listened to the wisdom of the other person.

I won't take that bet because there are outs for Arizona and it'll depend heavily on the makeup of SCOTUS at that point in time, which, 5-10 years from now, could be vastly different.

Like I said, it depends on how they frame the issues. If AZ successfully frames it as something of a criminal enforcement statute, it has a shot. If it stays strictly an immigration issue, it's dead.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Which is where I go back to an individual being lawfully detained.



And when the federal government refuses to exercise said authority to the detriment of individual states? Oh well.

So the argument goes like this.
AZ: We'll take care of this.
Feds: Hey, that's our job!
AZ: But you're not doing it.
Feds: Doesn't matter, it's still our job, not yours.
AZ: But we need you to start doing your job.
Feds: No.

Sad, but true and concise summary of the situation.

I guess we can start talking about how the United States has become a failed nation state if the feds have their way. Just popped up this definition of failed state off wiki:

"A state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains, in the words of Max Weber, a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state."

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I guess we can start talking about how the United States has become a failed nation state if the feds have their way. Just popped up this definition of failed state off wiki:

"A state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains, in the words of Max Weber, a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state."

Which very accurately describes the state of Mexico right now, yet another argument for controlled borders - it is increasingly looking like we have a failed state on our southern border.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I won't take that bet because there are outs for Arizona and it'll depend heavily on the makeup of SCOTUS at that point in time, which, 5-10 years from now, could be vastly different.

Like I said, it depends on how they frame the issues. If AZ successfully frames it as something of a criminal enforcement statute, it has a shot. If it stays strictly an immigration issue, it's dead.

So you changed your mind in the last few minutes from when you said "I happen to think it's ripe for abuse, and regardless will get shot down on one or more technicality."