Feds to file suit against AZ imigration law

[Kulaf]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37789246/ns ... york_times

I know this is somewhat of a hot button issue but having read the law in question I am finding it hard to justify how the Federal government can get involved in a state issue.

[Ddrak]

It would be interesting to see what terms the Federal Government would sue over. I think the law itself is bad as it assumes guilt until proven innocence, which seems unconstitutional at best.

Will be interesting.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Not really from my reading. It is based on police having probable cause to feel that a subject might be an illegal alien. Then it requires the subject to provide a valid ID and if it is not provided they are detained pending investigation. Much like if a police officer would have probable cause to think you are driving without a license that they can ask for you to provide one, and if you can't they detain you.

[Kulaf]

Here is the text of the law:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yes, it will be interesting.

As I understand it, states don't have standing in relations with foreign governments. That's a purely federal issue. So in my ill-informed opinion, Arizona is on shaky grounds. But we'll see.

[Kulaf]

The AZ law only directs all agencies of AZ to fully comply with Federal law to the maximum extent the federal law allows. It does not place AZ in contact with any foreign government or agency.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Much like if a police officer would have probable cause to think you are driving without a license that they can ask for you to provide one, and if you can't they detain you.

I can't speak for other states, but that's not at all how it works in NE. For example, I don't believe you can be pulled over for any reason other than a moving violation, so "suspicion of driving without a license" is out right off the bat. Further, if you get pulled over and can't provide a license, you aren't immediately detained. You're given a court date, and in court you have the opportunity to provide proof of your legal right to drive (At the time of the alleged offense, of course).

I know the police aren't likely to allow you to drive away from the scene if you can't provide a license, but you aren't immediately arrested/detained.

[Ddrak]

Not really from my reading. It is based on police having probable cause to feel that a subject might be an illegal alien. Then it requires the subject to provide a valid ID and if it is not provided they are detained pending investigation. Much like if a police officer would have probable cause to think you are driving without a license that they can ask for you to provide one, and if you can't they detain you.

I would love to know what "probable cause" they would express, especially seeing they aren't allowed to use basically anything racial. Even so, they would either have to release them or arrest them within a very narrow time frame.

On driving without a license - generally you're just required to show a license within a specified time, but I could be confusing laws here with laws over there.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Much like if a police officer would have probable cause to think you are driving without a license that they can ask for you to provide one, and if you can't they detain you.

I can't speak for other states, but that's not at all how it works in NE. For example, I don't believe you can be pulled over for any reason other than a moving violation, so "suspicion of driving without a license" is out right off the bat. Further, if you get pulled over and can't provide a license, you aren't immediately detained. You're given a court date, and in court you have the opportunity to provide proof of your legal right to drive (At the time of the alleged offense, of course).

I know the police aren't likely to allow you to drive away from the scene if you can't provide a license, but you aren't immediately arrested/detained.

Correct....which is why the law states the following:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

So if an officer has probable cause to believe that you have comitted a crime you may be arrested and if it is determined that you are not a legal resident you will be turned over to the appropriate federal authority when any and all time is served for any conviction.

[Ddrak]

So if a cop thinks you're being a terrorist and likely to be stripped of your citizenship they can lock you up without any real reason?

Actually I suspect this is where the federal suit would lie - I'm not sure a state can arrest people for a federal crime.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Its a risky move by the Obama administration. The AZ law enjoys broad public support across the country, and will just give rise to claims of Big Government trying to take over states rights when Big Government won't, or can't control the borders. (And that's a valid point, US immigration policy has been fucked up for a very long time and lawmakers keep dodging the issue). There are so many ways this could blow up in Obama's face, even if they prevail in court. AZ might even be able to subpoena Clinton and Obama (they'll surely try). Can you imaginge the political fallout of having a sitting President give testimony in a court case he supports (or lacking an actual appearance in court, have to be deposed), and then losing that case?

Its a lose-lose proposition for the Obama administration.

[Kulaf]

So if a cop thinks you're being a terrorist and likely to be stripped of your citizenship they can lock you up without any real reason?

Actually I suspect this is where the federal suit would lie - I'm not sure a state can arrest people for a federal crime.

Dd

I am not sure exactly what arguement you are making here. Blowing up a building is not a "federal crime" per se unless the building in question is a federal building. Probable cause states that any reasonable person would preceive that a crime has been or is about to be comitted. Police are allowed to arrest people without warrent if they have probable cause, i.e. a store has been robbed and a person is seen fleeing the scene the police have probable cause to arrest the fleeing person to determine if they are in fact the person responsible. This is not a police whim.

[Torakus]

So if a cop thinks you're being a terrorist and likely to be stripped of your citizenship they can lock you up without any real reason?

Actually I suspect this is where the federal suit would lie - I'm not sure a state can arrest people for a federal crime.

Dd

I am not sure exactly what arguement you are making here. Blowing up a building is not a "federal crime" per se unless the building in question is a federal building. Probable cause states that any reasonable person would preceive that a crime has been or is about to be comitted. Police are allowed to arrest people without warrent if they have probable cause, i.e. a store has been robbed and a person is seen fleeing the scene the police have probable cause to arrest the fleeing person to determine if they are in fact the person responsible. This is not a police whim.

Kulaf is exactly right here. The state can absolutely arrest and detain you for a federal crime. They just can't prosecute you for it, unless it is also a state or local infraction as well. Generally, it seems that this will be treated not as a primary offense for reasons of probable cause (just like not wearing a seat belt in some states, can't be pulled over for it, but can be fined for it if pulled over for other reasons). Either way I don't think they will even need to go all the way up to the probably cause level. I think particularized suspicion will be sufficient to ask for proof of legal residence.

Tora

[Lurker]

AZ might even be able to subpoena Clinton and Obama (they'll surely try). Can you imaginge the political fallout of having a sitting President give testimony in a court case he supports (or lacking an actual appearance in court, have to be deposed), and then losing that case?

I have no idea if the DOJ case has merit or not since they haven't released a legal brief, but I can say without a doubt that there's no rational reason to think Obama or Clinton are going to be subpoena'd or deposed as part of this case, and there would be no legal basis to do so if Arizona was dumb enough to try. Where do you read this stuff?

[Ddrak]

So if a cop thinks you're being a terrorist and likely to be stripped of your citizenship they can lock you up without any real reason?

Actually I suspect this is where the federal suit would lie - I'm not sure a state can arrest people for a federal crime.

Dd

I am not sure exactly what arguement you are making here. Blowing up a building is not a "federal crime" per se unless the building in question is a federal building. Probable cause states that any reasonable person would preceive that a crime has been or is about to be comitted. Police are allowed to arrest people without warrent if they have probable cause, i.e. a store has been robbed and a person is seen fleeing the scene the police have probable cause to arrest the fleeing person to determine if they are in fact the person responsible. This is not a police whim.

I guess I was looking for some other crime that was constitutionally prohibited from being enforced by the states. Perhaps I should have given the example of the state arresting someone for treason or sedition instead. I was absolutely NOT referring to something like "blowing up a building" which is obviously a state crime as well.

The real question is exactly what sort of "probable cause" you could muster without introducing racial or other discriminatory factors into the case. It's a case of proving a negative - someone doesn't have papers, but citizens aren't required to carry papers, so the only place that leaves you is a whole bunch of false arrests.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

AZ might even be able to subpoena Clinton and Obama (they'll surely try). Can you imaginge the political fallout of having a sitting President give testimony in a court case he supports (or lacking an actual appearance in court, have to be deposed), and then losing that case?

I have no idea if the DOJ case has merit or not since they haven't released a legal brief, but I can say without a doubt that there's no rational reason to think Obama or Clinton are going to be subpoena'd or deposed as part of this case, and there would be no legal basis to do so if Arizona was dumb enough to try. Where do you read this stuff?

I didn't read it anywhere. And an attorney for AZ might want, and would be entitled to, information as to why the US government can't secure borders. Is it intentional? Is it just incompetency? Something else? If it's intentional and/or incompetency, that might give grounds to the legitimacy of the law (or might not, Im not a lawyer). In any case, one of the ways to get that information is to ask the people responsible their reasons. And that just might be Clinton and Obama, among others. Will a subpoena stick? I don't know. WIll AZ attornys try? I'm betting they will.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

why the US government can't secure borders

Because the border between the US and Mexico is next to impossible to secure, maybe? We'd have to literally build another Great Wall spanning nearly 2000 miles, and post guards along it. And spotlights. The cost alone would be prohibitively expensive, and anything less than a 10-foot-thick stone wall can be torn down, climbed over, or tunneled under in a matter of minutes. Simply put, "securing the border" from illegal immigrants is a pipe dream.

[Kulaf]

Then if the Federal government has abdicated its duty to secure the borders it should rally behind states attemplting to comply with Federal law, not try to slap them down.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I'm all for building a second Great Wall, if thats what it takes.

[Partha]

Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, unless of course they happen to be shifty looking brown people. And they should speak English!