Brewer confident immigration law will stand

Of course it will stand. The law is rooted in current federal law. And Obimbo will lose another one.
BARACK OBAMA: THE ABSOLUTE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER!!!!!

DICTATOR JAN SPEAKS! I drank the TEA! I went to the PARTAY! Keep the SB1070 Videos coming! Keep the SB1070 Videos coming! "The Description" starring Obama! YOU LIE! YOU LIE! brown skin, brown eyes men, women, children and their neighbors trying to go through the backdoor "UNATTESTED" unto me! I drank the TEA! I'm the EVE in the GOP TEA PARTY EEVS! FAIR is FAIR! He doesn't "qualify" for the REAL ID! He's YOU LIE! SB1070 "The Description" of a illegal "ALIEN" will stand! Walk that way! Wink! Wink NOD NOD! You're under arrest! You're all "illegal" until you ATTEST! ATTEST unto me! Arizona is too "racist" to fail! We're broke! SB1070 is the Budget GOP Border Beat!

YOU GO GIRL
You have my vote Brewer

Achtung. Eva!! When are the goose-stepping SS going to debut!! As soon as you are re-elected !! Don't visit fascist Arizona, if you know what's good for you!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

I LIVE IN NORRISTOWN.PA AND THEY JUST CAME OUT THE WOOD WORK>I CLOSED MY EYES AND OPEN MY EYES AND IM AM IN MEXICO>> EVERY ONE HAS TO LIVE >BUT YOU CAN NOT COME AND OVER CROWED OTHER PEOPLES SMALL TOWN,IT IS SUCH A DRAIN>

GOP CONGRESSMAN: GOP IS LED BY DEMAGOGUES

Congressman Inglis (R-SC) charges that his own party is being led by demagogues like Palin and Beck. Well, he felt it on his own skin after losing a primary because of his critique of Beck. Still, this interview with AP is rather stunning.

And the GOP congressman does not pull any punches.

** From condeming GOP leaders:

He cited a claim made famous by Palin that the Democratic health care bill would create "death panels" to decide whether elderly or sick people should get care.

"There were no death panels in the bill ... and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It's not leadership. It's demagoguery," said Inglis, one of three Republican incumbents who have lost their seats in Congress to primary and state party convention challengers this year.

"I think we have a lot of leaders that are following those (television and talk radio) personalities and not leading," he said. "What it takes to lead is to say, 'You know, that's just not right.'"

** To warnings about the consequences:

Inglis said voters eventually will discover that you're "preying on their fears" and turn away.

"It's a real concern, because I think what we're doing is dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni," he said, referring to the two predominant Islamic denominations that have feuded for centuries. "It's very difficult to come together to find solutions."

** To admitting harassing of Democratic congressmen by Teabagger thugs:

Inglis said he was shocked during the health care votes as he watched protesters jeering Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who was beaten as a leading civil rights activist in the 1960s.

Inglis said he was too far away during the jeering incident to hear whether the protesters shouted racial epithets, as Lewis and other black lawmakers have claimed. But Inglis said the behavior was threatening and abusive.

"I caught him at the door and said, 'John, I guess you've been here before,'" Inglis said.

** To admitting racism as one of the moving forces behind today's GOP:

Inglis, 50, who calls himself a Jack Kemp disciple because he has emphasized outreach to minorities as the late Republican congressman did, thinks racism is a part of the vitriol directed at President Barack Obama.

"I love the South. I'm a Southerner. But I can feel it," he said.

A stunning interview.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICAN_CRITIC?SITE=TXWIC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I admit that I'm no Constitutional scholar, but the law seems aimed to allow the police to bust people for walking/driving/living while Hispanic.That's not just fundamentally unfair, but it seems to be unconstitutional to me.
.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the SC determine quite a few years ago that the authorities may not demand ID's without due cause? A surfeit of melanin and/or an accent are not due cause.
.

The feds are all worried about the Arizona and local officials will violate someone's civil rights. The Arizona law is like the federal law, so are the feds worried about ICE and other federal law enforcement officials violation someone's civil rights when they enforce the federal law?

* * * * *
Posted by: Just sayin' (the original) | July 9, 2010 5:20 PM
.
Not only are you no lawyer, it is obvious you haven't read the law.
.
The law specifies that police CANNOT (I repeat, CANNOT) detain or arrest someone merely on the suspicion that he or she is present in the United States illegally. To the contrary, the law REQUIRES police to have at least some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (OTHER than an immigration violation) before to they may stop and detain someone. Only after an independently valid stop, detention or arrest are the police allowed to inquire into a person's immigration status. Therefore, by definition, racial profiling is not legal under this law (racial profiling being the use of a person’s race or physical characteristics to predict criminal behavior). And, contrary to your suggestion, the law does not “allow the police to bust people for walking/driving/living while Hispanic.”
.
To your credit, you are correct that the United States Supreme Court has held that a detention based on race (and language) alone does not comply with the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment - even if the stop is conducted on or around the border with Mexico. The case that said so is United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). Why? Because, according to the Court, “Large numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Mexican ancestry, and even in the border area a relatively small proportion of them are aliens. The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens.” (See Id at pp. 886-87.)
.
However, now that you know that the Arizona law does not permit a stop, detention or arrest based solely on the basis of a person’s physical characteristics, or the belief that someone is present illegally, you must also admit this isn’t a racial profiling or DWM (Driving While Mexican) statute. Were it otherwise, I would have greater problems with it too. (And, BTW, the potential for racial profiling is not the reason the Obama Justice Department is challenging it.)

Just Sayin, OK I'll correct you. The law does not allow police to stop you for the purpose of checking your legal status. Geez, tell a lie over and over again and it becomes what people believe.

You can be stopped for a "perceived" seatbelt violation. In other words, a police officer just has to say that they thought you weren't wearing a seatbelt to stop you. I was pulled over in the middle of the Mohave Desert by a CHP that said he got a call from a cell phone about a car, that of course matched mine with "people drinking it up." It was just an excuse to pull me over. Yes, I was speeding but I saw him first. YOU drive through hundreds of miles of desert doing the tortoise crawl. I can't drive 65.

I have been cited for a seat belt violation coming out the driveway of a convenience store while snapping on the selt belt. All the crying about checking papers...every time I get stopped I'm asked for papers: a Driver's License. If you don't have one, or don't show one you get a ticket, or have your vehicle impounded.

And speaking of impounded...here in illegal immigrant heaven, the sheriff's sit outside the courthouse and wait for the illegals that just came out of court for driving without a license, watch them get right back in their car and then pull them over and take away the vehicle. They got 11,000 vehicles in only TWO years. You better have uninsured motorist coverage if you come to Cali. Just sayin'

Shorter Republican Response: Prosecute lawbreakers!...unless the lawbreaker is a big business owner who knowingly hires undocumented workers in order to get cheap labor, avoid payment of benefits, and ensure that workers won't complain to state or federal officials about conditions in the workplace.

Republicans are screaming about illegal immigration (see Arizona) and yet it's the Republicans in the Senate (Lindsey Graham, John McCain etc) who are the ones who are actually blocking immigration reform debate from going forward in congress.

There's a reason why the Repugs in congress would rather demagogue on the border issue rather than actually take steps to fix the problem - Big Business.

Big Business is making a killing with the cheap labor that illegals are providing them with and almost every single Republican in the Senate is in the back pocket of big business (and Big Oil and Wall Street). The way to fix the illegal immigration problem is to crack down hard on these Big Business corps who are hiring illegals. No jobs = no incentive for illegals to cross the border.

But that's the problem, the Repugs WILL NOT crack down on their Big Business pals who provide them with mega millions in campaign donations....so they spend their time whining about the "evil brown people" crossing the border illegally while also working to make sure that immigration never comes up as an open topic for debate in the Senate.

SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK IMMIGRATION REFORM FROM COMING UP FOR DEBATE

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/gop-to-obama-give-it-up-on-energy-and-immigration-already.php

I suppose some of you think that this was "racial profiling"...

The following is an example from one city in S. California. Note that out of 113 stopped 45 were impound, so 4 were impounded because they had WARRANTS. NO DRUNKS. The rest were no doubt illegals driving without a license. 38% of the drivers. Let's say that we project that statewide and be conservative with 25% that would mean there are 6 million unlicensed drivers in California to go with the 22.7 million licensed drivers. Hey, everybody got a car in Cali. By the way that means that there are two to three times the amount of illegals in the US than the government want you to know about.

http://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/articles/2010/07/09/news/doc4c37410b5bf83744647446.txt

Four people are arrested during DUI/driver's license checkpoint in Fontana

Published: Friday, July 9, 2010 10:33 AM CDT
Four people were arrested during a DUI/driver's license checkpoint in Fontana on Thursday, according to the Fontana Police Department.

The checkpoint was held on Sierra Avenue at Walnut Avenue in the northern part of the city.

The four arrests were for outstanding warrants, police said.

Of the 1,280 vehicles that passed through the checkpoint, 113 were stopped, and 45 vehicles were impounded for various reasons, including driving without a driver's license. A total of 69 citations were also issued for various traffic violations.

I KNOW YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED...so here is more news. This time from illegal aliens supporters mad about them having their cars impound for driving without a license...I love Google.

Long article, but very eye opening as to the amount of illegal drivers. WHAAT? Illegal aliens can't drive legally? No.

http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/14/californiawatch-car-seizures-at-dui-checkpoints-prove-profitable-for-cities-raise-legal-questions/

In the Los Angeles suburb of South Gate, Hispanics make up 92 percent of the population. The police department averaged 86 impounds each time officers shut down a road last year for a sobriety checkpoint. By comparison, they averaged a little more than four drunken driving arrests.

Checkpoints in cities where Hispanics are the largest share of the population seized 34 cars per operation, a rate three times higher than cities with the smallest Hispanic populations, the Investigative Reporting Program’s analysis shows.

The checkpoint data tells a similar story in two-dozen other cities. A majority of these communities are crowded together east of Los Angeles within the Inland Empire.

The disparity between vehicles impounds and DUI arrests exist in virtually every region of California.

Just sayin' (the original),
the Arizona law stipulates probable cause quite clearly.

@ John W
.
So how does a stop, detention or arrest for some other crime constitute probable cause to ask specifically for immigration documents? I don't get that.
.
BTW, I'm not unsympathetic to Arizona's plight given the failure of the Feds to secure the border. And the BO Administration's motives here do seem lame. And Mexico's kvetch about the law is hypocritical, given their own draconian immigration laws aimed at Central Americans..
.
Just seems that there's something wrong in principle here.
.

@ John W
.
Any law--no matter how well intentioned, no matter how carefully crafted--is subject to abuse. To me, the probable cause verbiage in this statute is vague, and so even more easily abused than a well written law.
.
As a lawyer you must know the psychology of many police officers--they can often become jaded and bitter and abuse their authority. Some were psychologically unfit when they entered the Academy.
.
And as a lawyer you must know that Driving While Mexican (or Black or Asian or young etc, etc) is never, EVER a matter of statutory language, but of enforcement.
.
In other words, I may be driving 7 mph over the speed limit and a cop will let me slide, while a visibly Hispanic person may be driving 2 mph over the limit and will be lawfully pulled over and have to prove his/her citizenship--besides getting the ticket I didn't get. That is an abuse.
.
Look, I'm not saying this law is the most egregious injustice in the world, and we should all boycott the Diamondbacks. But it sticks in my Libertarian craw.
.

* * * * *
Posted by: Just sayin' | July 10, 2010 10:02 AM
.
Police don’t need probable cause to ask for immigration documents if they have a reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to arrest. With reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to arrest for a crime (other than an immigration violation), they only need a reasonable basis to make inquiry into a person’s immigration status based on the circumstances as they unfold. For instance, assuming police make a legitimate vehicle stop for speeding or running a red light, the driver’s inability to speak English or produce a valid driver’s license could well make it reasonable for the detaining officer to make an immigration status inquiry. That’s because some documentation is necessary for police to ascertain an individual’s identity and place of residence before issuing a ticket (as opposed to taking them into custody). In other words, the police would only need to have a “reasonable suspicion” like that needed to justify a detention to make an immigration inquiry. That would prevent police from unlawfully prolonging an otherwise valid detention as a pretext for immigration enforcement. And, of course, a detainee doesn’t have to answer the inquiry because of something called the right to remain silent.

Unfortunately for the racist Arizona Republican Party - Racial Profiling is NOT an extension of existing Federal Immigration Law and the Arizona Republicans clownish "law" will be overturned in federal court.

Arizona Republicans (like all Republicans nowadays) should just drop the charades and put their white sheets back on. It's not like everyone in America doesn't already know that todays Republican Party is choke full of racists, xenophobes and bigots.

Let's see.

If, and it's a big if, there really are 10 million "illegals" in the US, that constitutes, what, 1/3 of 1 % of the US population?

Since they are almost all working, the adults, at jobs Americans largely won't take, since they are paying withholding and fica taxes from which they won't benefit, I really odn't think the sky is falling if they were all granted a blanket amnesty.

The proposals that have been discussed fall far short of a blanket amnesty.

So, is the sky falling, or is it just the same warmed over lection year rhetoric?

John W
.
A driver’s inability to speak English AND (not or) produce a valid driver’s license would be probable cause to my mind. But reading the statute, I see nothing specific defining probable cause. Seems to me there should be.
.

Posted by: ornery | July 10, 2010 5:59 PM
.
A blanket amnesty would never fly politically, nor should it, IMO. Just because some illegals (maybe even 'most' I don't know) are hard working and law abiding that doesn't mean that all of them are.
.
If it were up to me, I'd offer a fast track to citizenship to people who have been here a long time (say 10 years), have played by the rules and have children. Not a blanket amnesty. It's just not fair.
.

Ornery,

I think your assumption is wrong that the illegals are having taxes withheld. Many work on a cash basis.

As for those that do have taxes withheld, they definitely do benefit from the services of the gov't - roads, schools, social services, national defense, etc...

Oilwell,

What's the difference between the Arizona law and the federal law? Nothing.

So how is it the feds can enforce their law (when they chose to) w/o worrying about viloating someone's civil rights, but everyone is concerned about Arizona's state and local police?

* * * * *
Posted by: Just sayin' | July 10, 2010 2:53 PM
.
You know, there are lots of things about law enforcement that hang in my Libertarian craw too. There will always be abuse as long as there is any need for law enforcement because police are human. You remember what Madison said? “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” So this is a given. And consider also that we will need law enforcement any time laws exist that must be enforced. The alternative is anarchy (and I’m not THAT kind of Libertarian).
.
I do not take liberty for granted. It is something that we must be vigilant to protect all the time. For better or worse, our system of government requires us to challenge individual deprivations of liberty one at a time in the court system.
.
I am not as troubled by the law’s language as you are. Remember that state officers are restrained by the federal constitution in their enforcement of state laws. The Fourth Amendment trumps any state law, and it requires something more concrete than fuzzy notions of law enforcement propriety. Terms like “probable cause,” “reasonable suspicion,” and so on - all of which pertain to the Fourth Amendment - have been refined by the Courts over the years. When statutes use terms of art peculiar to the law, the overwhelming presumption is that the statute employs that language with the same meaning as the legal term of art, unless the law indicates otherwise. Thus, one must presume the Arizona statute incorporates the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment that has evolved over time. As such, when a state law says that police must have a reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to arrest before an immigration inquiry can be made, there is concrete meaning behind the words. It means that the totality of the circumstances would inform any reasonable peace officer (rather than the subjective belief of the particular officer), that some activity related to crime is afoot and the person detained is involved in that criminal activity. Police employ that standard every day, and the courts in the state and federal systems administer that standard every day. Abuses can be corrected by judicial intervention, and police (good or evil) will learn what prospers and what doesn’t.
.
I am unsure what you describe in your last two paragraphs constitutes an “abuse.” The law in most states gives Police discretion to decline enforcement of laws when a violation is too peculiar or too de minimis to warrant prosecution, or when the circumstances justify a violation of the law to prevent a greater harm. Requiring enforcement of every single technical violation, regardless of the justice of it in every case, could also result in greater injustice. On the other hand, no one has the right to expect police to decline prosecution simply because they are nice, or pretty, or whatever.
.
In the example you gave, a police officer could well exercise his or her discretion to decline giving you a ticket if the basic speed law was observed (i.e. you drove no faster than was safe), even if you were a few miles an hour over the limit. Some leeway is also given for the possibility of faulty equipment and following the flow of traffic. So, if you were going as fast as everyone else, then maybe only a warning would be warranted.
.
On the other hand, if your hypothetical “visibly Hispanic” driver were pulled over for driving two miles an hour over the limit, giving him or her a ticket would not, by itself, warrant an inquiry into a person’s immigration status unless the circumstances that came to the officer’s attention warranted it. If an immigration check followed every lawful stop of a “visibly Hispanic” person, such a practice would often result in a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits police from prolonging a detention beyond the time necessary to effectuate the purposes of a detention. Taking more time than necessary to process a speeding ticket would require some further information beyond a person’s Hispanic appearance. On the other hand, the lack of a state license, a person’s difficulty with English, a Mexico City taxi driver’s license, or other similar circumstances, just might do it.

Since they are almost all working, the adults, at jobs Americans largely won't take, since they are paying withholding and fica taxes from which they won't benefit, I really odn't think the sky is falling if they were all granted a blanket amnesty.

Posted by: ornery | July 10, 2010 5:59 PM

Ornery, do you have any evidence that illegals pay fica and income tax? How can an illegal pay fica, etc unless he has committed fraud and has a phony or stolen SS#. We have gone over this before. If they do have a SS#, they can file a tax return and get back thousands of dollars from Earned Income Credit for LOW INCOME. Just because your leaders lie and make statements like this, doesn't mean that it happens, legally. Do you understand? And millions of illegals are out of work and collecting welfare.

Ornery get out your calculator or scratch pad and figure out how illegal pay enough into the system in LA County to cover these costs:

April 2007 – Los Angeles County
Through their citizen children, illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County collect $420 million annually in welfare and food stamps, according to a report requested by 5th District County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services told the supervisor that payments to illegal immigrants' children amount to approximately 24% of the county's combined CalWORKS and food stamps budget. According to Antonovich's office, illegal immigrants annually cost the county $360 million in health care and $220 million in incarceration costs.

And, those figures don't include education, the cost to society of unlicensed and uninsured drivers. And on and on.

It is a way of life to avoid paying taxes in Mexico by working for cash. You can read it here:

http://www.cis.org/seminara/tax-reckoning

How about all of you who don't want immigration reform revisit your savior Ronny's amnesty program? He knew all according to most of the GOP see Hannity, Beck and my favorite of the bunch, Limbaugh.

Fact Check:

The violent crime rate for Arizona was 447.0 per 100,000 population in 2008, the lowest since 1971.

The consensus that immigrant workers expand the U.S. economy is broad, and crosses party lines. In 2005, the White House of Republican President George W. Bush remarked on the fact in one of its annual economic reports to Congress: Economic Report of the President, Feb. 2005: The foreign-born are associated with much of the employment growth in recent years. Between 1996 and 2003, when total employment grew by 11 million, 58 percent of the net increase was among foreign-born workers…. [E]mployment of natives as operators, fabricators, and laborers fell by 1.4 million between 1996 and 2002, while employment in such occupations grew by 930,000 among the foreign-born. This should not be taken as evidence that the foreign-born displace native workers; rather, it reflects the fact that immigrants have made up all of the growth in the low-skilled workforce.

@ John W
.
One of my comments was lost in the ether. I said, to my mind, not speaking English AND (not "or") not being able to show a valid drivers license would constitute probable cause.
.
And thanks for the well-read and honest feedback...a rarity here.
.

How about all of you who don't want immigration reform revisit your savior Ronny's amnesty program?

In that case Reagan should have listened to his quote: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Amnesty led to millions of illegals flooding the border states, and is bankrupting California. Lots of help from liberals in the State Legislature that spend, spend, spend.

I wonder how much the police departments in Arizona are going to like being sued when fired up individuals don't like the way they enforce this law?

Athena,

Since the laws are identical, shouldn't the risk of the Arizona police department being sued be equal to the risk of federal law enforcement departments?

More Smoke and Mirrors on the Border

California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on Friday that he would be sending the California National Guard to the Mexican border, thereby fulfilling his pledge to President Obama.

Hip, hip, hooray!

Well, the announcement is not quite hooray-able since the role of the 224 troops will be only supportive and the forces, while armed, “will not be deployed in a direct law enforcement role.”

In other words and following the president’s lead in May, the California Guard will constitute figurative teats on a bull, not protecting the state’s Mexican border, not apprehending illegals, not inhibiting the influx of illegal drugs, not guarding California, not defending the southern California populace from marauding invaders, murderers, thieves, and rapists.

Why the National Guardsmen even have weapons and ammunition is a bewilderment.

Schwarzenegger is just fulfilling a pledge to Obama, which is not to be confused with fulfilling his oath of office to support and defend Californians. ”The governor has largely refused to embrace aggressive measures cracking down on illegal immigrants, such as the new Arizona law that gives local law enforcement the ability to check immigration status if they reasonably believe the person may have crossed the border without documents:” http://tiny.cc/o5ogj

In other words, illegally.

Arnold, himself an immigrant, has a certain empathy for immigrants legal or not, especially those from Mexico, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1790)