Obama Assails Arizona Immigration Law

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

I'm not sure because I have not read the entire bill.. But I'm pretty sure the bill does not abolish officer discretion.

The real question will be what type of policies individual agencies adopt and how passively or aggressively they choose to enforce the laws. In concert with that will be how passively or aggressively individual County Attorney's choose to prosecute these crimes. Because believe me I have had many rock solid cases dismissed for "prosecutor discretion" with the real reason being that the prosecutors office was too busy to prosecute a case or it "lacked jury appeal". With budget cut backs, it is just worse now... So unless the law forces the prosecutors office to pursue and actively prosecute these cases I doubt you will see a huge increase in these cases. Why you may ask? Because it lacks jury appeal!

Truth be told the cities, counties, and state do not have the funds nor infrastructure to deal with prosecuting everyone of these potential cases. After the dust settles you will see it being used as another tool by LEO's to solve specific problems.

Just my .02 cents, YMMV

Smokin Joe the law says MAY, it does not take away any discretion. It will make arrests easier as officers will have a state statute to charge people with. The law also gives anyone the ability to sue over restrictions placed on LEO's in applying this policy, so I don't see any policies being officially placed on the books in regard to the new law.

The key as others have said will be how ICE reacts. Clueless Janet Reno has already come out against the new law...shocker....but I think it would make a hell of a statement if the local depts rounded up a couple hundred illegal’s using the new law, then announced they were going to bus them over to their local ICE station, and got the media to cover the event, kind of force ICE to play, I'm guessing there would be significant backlash if ICE said they didn't want them.

I bet Sheriff Joe would be up for it...maybe I'll drop the idea to him via email

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by Defender968

Smokin Joe the law says MAY, it does not take away any discretion. It will make arrests easier as officers will have a state statute to charge people with. The law also gives anyone the ability to sue over restrictions placed on LEO's in applying this policy, so I don't see any policies being officially placed on the books in regard to the new law.

Oh, so you mean like briefing policies... meaning what is written on the books is one thing; and what is said in briefing behind closed doors is another.... jeez I never thought an administration would do such a thing... My old agency took it one step further, they never updated policy and just issued memo's on what we should or should not do. It was awesome let me tell you. Because when the SHTF those memos and briefings suddenly disappeared...

Originally Posted by Defender968

The key as others have said will be how ICE reacts. Clueless Janet Reno has already come out against the new law...shocker....but I think it would make a hell of a statement if the local depts rounded up a couple hundred illegal’s using the new law, then announced they were going to bus them over to their local ICE station, and got the media to cover the event, kind of force ICE to play, I'm guessing there would be significant backlash if ICE said they didn't want them.

I bet Sheriff Joe would be up for it...maybe I'll drop the idea to him via email

Joe will do it a couple of times, I would almost bet my next commission check on it. You don't even need to waist the bandwidth on the e-mail.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by Defender968

Smokin Joe the law says MAY, it does not take away any discretion. It will make arrests easier as officers will have a state statute to charge people with. The law also gives anyone the ability to sue over restrictions placed on LEO's in applying this policy, so I don't see any policies being officially placed on the books in regard to the new law.

The key as others have said will be how ICE reacts. Clueless Janet Reno has already come out against the new law...shocker....but I think it would make a hell of a statement if the local depts rounded up a couple hundred illegal’s using the new law, then announced they were going to bus them over to their local ICE station, and got the media to cover the event, kind of force ICE to play, I'm guessing there would be significant backlash if ICE said they didn't want them.

I bet Sheriff Joe would be up for it...maybe I'll drop the idea to him via email

We used to round up illegals by the dozen. Border Patrol would tell us they Somebody did call the local media one day and lo and behold, they sent a bus.

I'm not sure who called.
That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

[COLOR="Pink"]Joe will do it a couple of times, I would almost bet my next commission check on it. You don't even need to waist the bandwidth on the e-mail.

I know but I've been meaning to shoot him an email to thank him for his hard work anyway. I'm going to let him know that we the law abiding citizens of this nation do appreciate his efforts. I know he doesn't need it, but it never hurts to hear it.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

For starters, Douglass's strategy of assimilation failed to secure the abolition of slavery through a political settlement alone. ?

__________________________________________________ _
* To clarify, this 'top down' summary deliberately privileges rhetorical clarity over a nuanced thumbnail of the complexities of African American political, intellectual, cultural, religious, and social history.

Except we're not talking about slavery or African American political, intellectual, cultural, religious, and social history.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Many of the people I personally know who fit your description are anything but "ambivalent" about this issue. They see them as lawbreakers, destroyers of some neighborhoods, and a "blight on their good name." I teach with a Latino guy who is pretty far to the left on this issue (as he is on all issues), but his brother (and most of the rest of his family) are waaaaay to the other side, and support this law, as they did the Employer Sanctions Law, etc.

The ambivalence can stem not from a commitment to upholding the law but rather how some aspects of the political rhetoric paint with ever broadening brush strokes certain groups.

IMO, we are using 'talking points' from some of the most controversial chapters in America's past. My hope is that we can find a combination of twenty-first century 'talking points' that allow us to address this and other issues in a way that more and more people come to the table with ideas.

To me, a central theme is "scofflawism." If America were to have a discussion about scofflawism we might be able to kill more birds with fewer stones. I want the collegian in her dormitory, high on Adderall who is downloading episodes of Gossip Girl as she cuts and pastes her term paper off 'teh internets' the dad in his study deciding he doesn't need a building permit for his renovations, the homeboy from around the way selling bootleg DVDs out of the trunk of his car, the developer in her corner office applying a 'fudge factor' to some spreadsheet as she thumbs the cash she's going to pay her nanny under the table, the small business owner standing in line at Starbucks, reading a newspaper he has no intention of buying, and thinking about ways to cut overhead by hiring 'a friend of a friend of a friend', and a person of ambiguous residential status waiting in the ER, to all look in the mirror and ask "How am I part of the problem?"

By focusing on common behaviors, we can send an ever clearer message. It isn't about your skin color, or your accent, or your occupation, or where you live. It is about respecting the law and about not accepting goods or services for which you've not paid.

My $0.02.

Does that sound bitter?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

Except we're not talking about slavery or African American political, intellectual, cultural, religious, and social history.

Who are "we"? Why are we not? Are we really not? (Is African American history unrelated to debates over immigration, immigration policy, and "assimilation"?)

Why do "we" make these broad references to some parts of American history (the debate over the constitution and immigration policy) and not others (slavery and the Atlantic world, the history of the working classes, Reconstruction, and America's "rise to globalism")?

What might be different today if we took a more comprehensive look at our yesterdays? (I'd bet we would not have our current president--IMO, he's deliberately playing to the blind side of America's historical memory.)

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

----------To me, a central theme is "scofflawism." If America were to have a discussion about scofflawism we might be able to kill more birds with fewer stones.

I respectfully submit that "scofflawism" is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is a decayed and degenerate social contract. It started with intrusive government and the gradual usurpation/surrender of personal freedom and responsibility. It ends in anarchy.

One of the first lessons of leadership is not to give orders you know will be disobeyed. Every time such an order is given and people rightly ignore it, respect for all orders is eroded. Eventually even good orders are ignored and the social contract is rendered null and void. The mindless proliferation of "malum prohibidum" laws and their zealous enforcement distorts/obscures the nature of "malum en se" acts truely deserving sanction. There is no duty to obey a bad law.

The Federal Government has a duty to protect the border. As a retired Soldier, I have a strict and classical definition of duty. The Federal Government (both parties) has failed to uphold its end of the contract. I wish AZ every success as it attempts to do its duty.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

I respectfully submit that "scofflawism" is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is a decayed and degenerate social contract. It started with intrusive government and the gradual usurpation/surrender of personal freedom and responsibility. It ends in anarchy.

For what my two cents are worth, I think your take on the problem offers a superior 'big picture' than 'scofflawism.'

I wonder if your big picture may be too abstract for too many people for it to reach 'critical mass.' And even then, how might America repair this social contract? (Can it even be repaired or would it have to be re-imagined?) Would a constitutional convention that put everything on the table help solve the issue?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

For what my two cents are worth, I think your take on the problem offers a superior 'big picture' than 'scofflawism.'

I wonder if your big picture may be too abstract for too many people for it to reach 'critical mass.' And even then, how might America repair this social contract? (Can it even be repaired or would it have to be re-imagined?) Would a constitutional convention that put everything on the table help solve the issue?

My .02 only - you're right, it's too abstract to be a flashpoint. I've spent many years on "Hadrian's Wall" with nothing better to do than contemplate my navel. My understanding of the social contract is formed almost entirely out of my life experience as a professional Soldier. That is a perspective shared by less than one percent of the population.

I'm not sure the social contract can be repaired. I'm doubtful because we (Americans) have devolved from an independant to a dependant culture. For any contract to work, it has to be perceived to be fair and equitable - everybody has to have "skin in the game". Simple business/legal maxim. Right now we have a significant and growing percentage of our population with no investment and less interest in the betterment of this country. Creeping socialism will only exacerbate the apathy. What happens when 51% of the populace no longer pays even minimal taxes?

I certainly DO NOT want a Constitutional Convention. BTW - to my way of thinking, the Constitution is not the Contract. It is a physical manifestation of an aspect of it, but it is by no means its entirety. The Constitution was written to establish, define, and limit government. Our changing national character has been eroding those limits since at least the early 1900s (I submit the War of Northern Aggression was the first blow, YMMV ). I can only shudder in fear at what an unconstrained CC would do today given the nature of the controlling political parties.

If I want to lose even more sleep, I only need look as far as the vitriol lavished on anyone/anything espousing conservative principles and limited government. "If you would destroy them, first discredit them." Even though I should know better, I'm still disturbed at the efforts the administration is expending to steamroll dissent and demonize efforts like Arizona's.

[Richard]

I certainly DO NOT want a Constitutional Convention.

Ayyy-effin-men! Meanwhile...

"Over the weekend, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants rallied across the country demanding a path to citizenship. Don't we already have a path to citizenship? It's called the San Diego Freeway." -Jay Leno

"The liberals are saying that this guest worker program is really just a way to depress wages and create a permanent underclass of exploited labor. To which the big corporations said, 'And the problem is?'" -Bill Maher

"Happy TGIF! Do you know what TGIF stands for? The Greencard Is Five grand." -Jay Leno

"The Associated Press says that many of the Mexican people in Mexico are against this new immigration bill. Oh, man. Let's hope they don't boycott coming here." -Jay Leno

"Even though the Mexican President has only been in the United States two days, today the INS said they have no way to find him." -Jay Leno

"Immigration is the big issue right now. Earlier today, the Senate voted to build a 370-mile fence along the Mexican border. Experts say a 370- mile fence is the perfect way to protect a border that is 1,900 miles long." -Conan O'Brien

"The National Guard was called to patrol the U.S./Mexican border. The guards will track down and find illegals. That's not their job. They're trained to defend our country - not track down and find people. Let's be honest: the Guard couldn't even track down and find President Bush when he was in the National Guard." -Jay Leno

"It looks like the Senate and the president have finally agreed on an immigration bill. This one looks like it could become law and, of course, nobody likes it. The conservatives say the bill gives amnesty to the illegals. The liberals say it doesn't go far enough to protect the hard working immigrants here in America. And the L.A.P.D. doesn't know who to beat up." -Bill Maher

"No matter what other nations may say about the United States, immigration is still the sincerest form of flattery." -Kramer

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[craigepo]

A law Arizona can live with

By George F. Will
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

"Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a "sanctuary city," an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of "nullification" and "interposition," anarchy and disunion. Strange.

It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists "comprehensive" immigration reform.

Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she "caved to the radical fringe." This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a "fringe" of their state?

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy -- judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes -- because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things "beyond the reach of majorities."

But Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are required to try to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of "reasonable" will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights -- the Fourth Amendment -- proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures." What "reasonable" means in practice is still being refined by case law -- as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued "but upon probable cause." There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of "reasonable suspicion."

Brewer says, "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of "evenness" as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.

Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).

Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanic. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.

Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.

Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood -- some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042702741.html

georgewill@washpost.com

[badshot]

"Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

As usual the idiots in DC didn't read the bill...it mimics the federal law...lol, guess the Fed law sucks too and is unconstitutional...way to go and GJ Speaker. The bill also makes it a state crime, and makes clear that LEO contact be initiated by another infraction or crime.

I've never heard of a LEO letting anyone walk w/o ID until your identity can be verified, citizen or not. Exception: Sanctuary Cities

[badshot]

Mexican authorities unhappy with AZ Law? See below


How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens
By Michelle Malkin
April 28, 2010

-- The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?

-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment.

-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

Full Story Here:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mma...mm_04281.shtml

[echoes]

Originally Posted by orion5

Napolitano takes aim at Arizona immigration law
Posted: April 26th, 2010 01:16 PM ET


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told ABC News Monday Arizona’s new immigration law is ‘misguided.’

(CNN) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is taking aim at the new controversial law passed in her home state of Arizona dealing with illegal immigration, telling ABC News it is "not a good law in any number of reasons."

"But beyond that, what it illustrates is that other states now will feel compelled to do things." [Damn straight.]

In her interview with ABC broadcast Monday, Napolitano said the law is evidence a comprehensive federal immigration plan is needed. [You think?]


[/COLOR] [Safety first...ya'll don't hurt yourselves thinking too much up there in Washington. There's always the 112th Congress...........]

Grabbing my Tinfoil, but does anyone else see This as O's test case???


Sure, he is snarling now...but what if it is his little hypothesis for what to do later on to "non-believers???":munchin

Holly