Focus of the outrage: The new Arizona Immigration law...

[pragmatic]

.

Am seeing a lot of threads on the reactions to the Arizona legislation, but nothing on actually parsing the content. Here is the new Arizona law that is dominating the national headlines.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Give it a read. It's a 5-10 minute investment. (I printed it, which made it easier to review)

Did a quick read through it and am not finding the blatant civil rights violations that are being promoted by the protests. What sort of jumped out to me is that the bulk of the law is directed at employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Guessing about 80%.

The sections that are addressing LEOs and their direct interaction with citizens are fairly well detailed. And are very specific about how they (LEOs) will process those that are determined to be present illegally. They, by the law, will be required to explicitlyl follow all current Federal Immigation policy and transfer the individual to Federal immigration authorities for appropriate legal action.

Anybody want to weigh in on what the basis for the over reaction is? My impression is that we have a whole lot of political hyperbole going on....



(full disclosure...pulled this over from another forum where i am getting little or no response. :ssst: )


.

 

[Deuce]

The biggest issues I have:

1) "Reasonable suspicion" is a lower bar than "probable cause."

2) No proper definition of "lawful contact" is in the bill, and I've not found it elsewhere in AZ law. For all I know making eye contact is "lawful contact." Before anybody posts what that lawyer dude who helped write the bill said, I know what he said. He claims "lawful contact" means you must have already broken a law, but I've never seen a source for that other than his word. This issue can be settled if anyone knows where this term is defined in law.

3) "Any person" being able to sue police departments for implementing any policy which "limits enforcement" of this law. Some crackpot is going to see an officer drive past a Home Depot with a bunch of brown people standing outside, make the assumption that they're illegals and the officer is ignoring them, and sue the department. The department will have to either settle the suit or fight it in court, either way it will waste resources.

(I'll admit I didn't read the sections on hiring illegal immigrants because I really don't care to)

edit: Also this bill violates the rights of Martians!

 

[buck]

2) No proper definition of "lawful contact" is in the bill, and I've not found it elsewhere in AZ law. For all I know making eye contact is "lawful contact." Before anybody posts what that lawyer dude who helped write the bill said, I know what he said. He claims "lawful contact" means you must have already broken a law, but I've never seen a source for that other than his word. This issue can be settled if anyone knows where this term is defined in law.

legislatures have already changed that portion of the bill:

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

If only our media actually did their job rather then what they currently do. No?

 

[Deuce]

legislatures have already changed that portion of the bill:



If only our media actually did their job rather then what they currently do. No?

Good to see someone is listening to us!

 

[Areopagitican]

Yes, finally! Our whining is making a difference! First changing sentences in a law; next helping Mom with dishes.

Oh, okay, maybe not the latter but the former should give us the ability to have a break.

 

[The Prof]

1. obama refuses to enforce federal law on the border

2. instead he throws stones at the people of arizona for doing his job for him

3. his answer to the issue---comprehensive reform

4. the problem---it doesn't exist

5. there's "no appetite," he punts

6. hispanics are disappointed, their hopes popped, they feel pimped

pusillanimous politics, hardly inspiring

 

[RightinNYC]

3) "Any person" being able to sue police departments for implementing any policy which "limits enforcement" of this law. Some crackpot is going to see an officer drive past a Home Depot with a bunch of brown people standing outside, make the assumption that they're illegals and the officer is ignoring them, and sue the department. The department will have to either settle the suit or fight it in court, either way it will waste resources.

It doesn't authorize suits for single situations where a police officer doesn't enforce the law, but it allows people to seek injunctions where a local police department comes forward with a policy that specifically conflicts with the state law.

Amusingly enough, this is taken directly from civil rights legislation, which included identical provisions to allow individuals to force local police departments to adhere to federal civil rights law.

 

[RyrineaHaruno]

The reason I have trouble with this law is it will give the police to much power than they already had in the first place. Plus the fact that any Joe blow can file a lawsuit against the police for not enforcing the law, or what RightNyc said is just my nickpick at the law. Those are my only problems with this law, and the fact they had to modify it to downplay the racially profiling aspect of it.

 

[Tashah]

If only our media actually did their job rather then what they currently do. No?

Indeed. There was a demonstration in downtown Chicago this past week protesting the Arizona law and demanding a boycott. About 500 people carried placards and chanted. I looked at the protesters quite carefully. I'd say around 98% were Hispanic. It was covered that night on the local news, but the media presented it as a coalition white/black/brown grassroots movement.

Wasn't so :no:

 

[pragmatic]

The reason I have trouble with this law is it will give the police to much power than they already had in the first place. Plus the fact that any Joe blow can file a lawsuit against the police for not enforcing the law, or what RightNyc said is just my nickpick at the law. Those are my only problems with this law, and the fact they had to modify it to downplay the racially profiling aspect of it.

.

Am not clear on why there is such a high level of distrust for Arizona LEOs. All law enforcement operates using their discretion as part of their duties. If/when they cross a line they should and do face consequences.

The message conveyed from the opposition to the new law suggests AZ peace officers are "untrustworthy/racist/bigots" that will abuse civil rights. Am guessing that a high percentage of the forces are Hispanic. Would they support or allow such misbehavior among fellow officers. Really don't think so.

Still seeing a lot more political sensationalism from the protests/reactions to the new legislation than any meaningful substance in their arguments.


.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I support the whole legislation, I think it's well written, concise, to the point - they clarified a few things that were up in the air, thus, nullifying any reason for people to protest.

When reading the bill you can take note the numerous references to existing FEDERAL CODE. Since provisions are already IN the Federal Government's codes and laws concerning who is an illegal alien and who is allowed to be employed- there's no question of the constitutionality of this bill.

Note - this bill merely gives the state the right to determine legal status - if someone is deemed to be here unlawfully then they are merely handed over in custody to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (border patrol or other federal custody)

This bill is merely taking the FEDERAL LAWS that are already written and expounding on them to help get a REAL problem under CONTROL. There's nothing that's unlawful, here - except for the illegal aliens that have been permitted to remain in the US even though they're in clear violation of ALREADY WRITTEN federal laws.

The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).

A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
8 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

 

[pragmatic]

I support the whole legislation, I think it's well written, concise, to the point - they clarified a few things that were up in the air, thus, nullifying any reason for people to protest.

When reading the bill you can take note the numerous references to existing FEDERAL CODE. Since provisions are already IN the Federal Government's codes and laws concerning who is an illegal alien and who is allowed to be employed- there's no question of the constitutionality of this bill.

Note - this bill merely gives the state the right to determine legal status - if someone is deemed to be here unlawfully then they are merely handed over in custody to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (border patrol or other federal custody)

This bill is merely taking the FEDERAL LAWS that are already written and expounding on them to help get a REAL problem under CONTROL. There's nothing that's unlawful, here - except for the illegal aliens that have been permitted to remain in the US even though they're in clear violation of ALREADY WRITTEN federal laws.

As you note, it is concise and a relatively short piece of legislation. And it also appears that those protesting the loudest have not even read the law. (Or have read it and choose to ignore the actual content)

Yet California is threatening to boycott the state of Arizona. AG Holder is concerned about the Constitutionality (although he confesses he hasn't read it either). We have protests at major league baseball parks demanding the teams move their spring training facilities.

Morbidly fascinating......


.

 

[jamesrage]

As you note, it is concise and a relatively short piece of legislation. And it also appears that those protesting the loudest have not even read the law. (Or have read it and choose to ignore the actual content)




.

I bet its the part in bold. They hope by uttering the same lie over and over again that some dombass of a judge will side with them or at least turn the public against Arizona hoping to change Arizonans minds.

Yet California is threatening to boycott the state of Arizona. AG Holder is concerned about the Constitutionality (although he confesses he hasn't read it either). We have protests at major league baseball parks demanding the teams move their spring training facilities.

Morbidly fascinating......

Pro-illegals simply do not want any enforcement laws against illegal immigration.

 

[mike2810]

For those in CA. Why you thowing insults at AZ. Live up to your own law, You passed this before AZ did.

Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b
Click the above link to look the code section up for yourself

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

 

[liblady]

.

Am seeing a lot of threads on the reactions to the Arizona legislation, but nothing on actually parsing the content. Here is the new Arizona law that is dominating the national headlines.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Give it a read. It's a 5-10 minute investment. (I printed it, which made it easier to review)

Did a quick read through it and am not finding the blatant civil rights violations that are being promoted by the protests. What sort of jumped out to me is that the bulk of the law is directed at employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Guessing about 80%.

The sections that are addressing LEOs and their direct interaction with citizens are fairly well detailed. And are very specific about how they (LEOs) will process those that are determined to be present illegally. They, by the law, will be required to explicitlyl follow all current Federal Immigation policy and transfer the individual to Federal immigration authorities for appropriate legal action.

Anybody want to weigh in on what the basis for the over reaction is? My impression is that we have a whole lot of political hyperbole going on....



(full disclosure...pulled this over from another forum where i am getting little or no response. :ssst: )


.

i don't see any FINES being imposed on emplyers, while i do see substantial fines being imposed on illegals.

 

[mike2810]

i don't see any FINES being imposed on emplyers, while i do see substantial fines being imposed on illegals.

AZ approved an illegal hiring law a year or so ago targeting employers. Of the top, I don't remember the bill number. I believe Az was one of the first states to have a law requiring e-verify, and substantial pentalites to those that hire illegals.
Found it: The employer law pertaining to hiring illegals can be found ARS 23-211-214.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/23/00212.htm&Title=23&DocType=ARS

 

[liblady]

AZ approved an illegal hiring law a year or so ago targeting employers. Of the top, I don't remember the bill number. I believe Az was one of the first states to have a law requiring e-verify, and substantial pentalites to those that hire illegals.
Found it: The employer law pertaining to hiring illegals can be found ARS 23-211-214.
Format Document

most of this is in the new bill.....and still no mention of FINES.

 

[mike2810]

most of this is in the new bill.....and still no mention of FINES.

I live in AZ. I can tell you that we past a employer bill first. The fines are basically in the form of suspened business license. No license, closed business, loss of money. Wonder what CA has as far as fines against those that hire illegals.

HB2779,http://www.ailadownloads.org/advo/ArizonaHB2779.pdf

 

[Dittohead not!]

Bet between the mayors of Phoenix and LA:

In a letter this week to Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, Villaraigosa says Los Angeles will accept ownership of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio if the Suns win. Villaraigosa says a stint in Los Angeles would teach Arpaio that a person's immigration status can't be judged by appearance.

If the Lakers win the Western Conference finals, Villaraigosa says Arizona can have California gubernatorial candidates Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman. Both have ads promising to get tough on illegal immigration.

LA could use Arpaio, or someone like him. Put those gangbangers in tents, give them some physical labor to do, make them wear pink boxers. Phoenix can have Poizner and Whitman. All they've done is throw mud at each other anyway.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

most of this is in the new bill.....and still no mention of FINES.

No, there are no fines - as in - "employer must pay ___"

Why? Because a fine on an employer might not *mean* anything - it might encourage the employer to just pay the fines and repeat the offense. Businesses can net a large profit, a $10,000 fine still might not do anything. So they came up with a more harsh punishment - strict regulations, paperwork, and the likelihood that their license to continue company operations will be denied, thus, preventing them from running their business at all.

This SUCKS - this will hold more sway over employers than any amount of fine. Money is money - but inconvenience and the denial to continue to work has power.

Key points are highlighted. This is jut a snippet - several pages concern the actions to take against employers, but all actions start with this:

(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.
(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
(c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
33 county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.
(d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and . . .

A signed and sworn affidavit- that costs money that's unseen. This is a legal document that's written up *by* a lawyer and verified and approved and signed *by* a judge. You have to cover your lawyer's fees and court costs, at the least. In fact - I think 3 days is too tight to make that possible. I imagine that smaller businesses will suffer greatly.

The cost for that legal service, there, is far more than the $1,000 that individuals or coyotes are required to pay.

 

[hoops]

Indeed. There was a demonstration in downtown Chicago this past week protesting the Arizona law and demanding a boycott. About 500 people carried placards and chanted. I looked at the protesters quite carefully. I'd say around 98% were Hispanic. It was covered that night on the local news, but the media presented it as a coalition white/black/brown grassroots movement.

Wasn't so :no:

Careful . . . your observation could be considered racial profiling. Perhaps you should say "I'd say around 98% were people of color speaking spanish."

 

[pragmatic]

.

Thought the remarks by Obama during the Calderon visit were disappointing. Calderon's blasting of a US state law while visiting was inappropriate in the first place. But to have Obama embracing/supporting the Calderon slams was crossing a line.

If the verbiage of the Arizona law needs to be tuned to satisfy the opposition, let's have those debates. (personally don't think the left has any interest/intention to do anything but sensationalize/enflame the issue). But a US President seeming to take sides against a US state was bizarre at the least....


.

 

[jamesrage]

.

Thought the remarks by Obama during the Calderon visit were disappointing. Calderon's blasting of a US state law while visiting was inappropriate in the first place. But to have Obama embracing/supporting the Calderon slams was crossing a line.

If the verbiage of the Arizona law needs to be tuned to satisfy the opposition, let's have those debates. (personally don't think the left has any interest/intention to do anything but sensationalize/enflame the issue). But a US President seeming to take sides against a US state was bizarre at the least....


.

Obama is not the first President to toss Mexico's salad over illegal immigration and unfortunately he won't be the last. Heck if McCain was president he would have toss Mexico's salad on illegal immigration too. I didn't watch most of that but for some reason I doubt anyone asked Calderon "should the US have anti-illegal immigration laws like Mexico?" or "doesn't Mexico have tougher anti-illegal immigration laws that the US?".

 

[Objective Voice]

We've heard alot of talk from politicians on both sides of this issue, as well as the people - those most affected by it and those who are either for it or against it - but we've not heard from those individuals who would be carrying out the law - local police - until now.

From the linked article from YahooNews:

Arizona's new immigration law and similar proposals in other states would lead to an increase in crime, some police chiefs from around the country told Attorney General Eric Holder in an hourlong meeting Wednesday.

The chiefs told the attorney general that having to determine whether a person is in the United States illegally will break down the trust that police have built in communities and will divert law enforcement resources away from fighting crime.

If that happens, "we will be unable to do our jobs," said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck. "Laws like this will actually increase crime, not decrease crime."

Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor said the requirements of the new law are so burdensome that "we doubt the federal government can even handle the numbers of people we will bring to them" on immigration status.

For what it's worth, I understand that the illegal immigration issue had become so out of control for AZ that its lawmakers had to take a stand which I agree with, but I also see the position local AZ police would have with enforcing this law. All the more reason Congress needs to either enact stronger immigration measures or the White House needs to mandate enforcement of current immigration laws and start rounding these illegals up and moving them out!

 

[pro-bipartisan]

The only people who dislike this law are illegal immigrants or people who don't live in Arizona who don't understand what Arizonians go through.