Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by starang21

becuase it calls out illegal aliens and not white, black or hispanic.

and it's definitive

if that's the case, then Judge Bolton should not have struck down the key portions of it that more or less allow for profiling then, right?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

well, do you have any additional information as to their intent? or is all we can work with is the bill they wrote?

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...-kobach-email/

Wonk Room recently obtained an email written by Kris Kobach, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute — the group which credits itself with writing the bill — to Arizona state Sen. Russell Pierce (R), urging him to include language that will allow police to use city ordinance violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate queries” in light of the “lawful contact” deletion:

To begin with, Kobach’s correspondence affirms that though the bill was proposed and passed in Arizona, the shots are being called by a small group of lawyers whose office is based in Washington, DC. It also indicates that after vigorously defending his bill and its “lawful contact provision” in the New York Times, Kobach may have had second thoughts about the constitutionality of the bill he prides himself with writing.

In an email to Wonk Room, David Leopold -- president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association -- wrote:

Kobach’s email to Pearce is chilling. Knowing full well that the phrase “lawful contact” must go (a flip flop from the position he took yesterday in the New York Times) he recommends tweaking the law in a manner that would appear to allow profiling. Why else would he be interested in using property or rental codes to ferret out undocumented people? Is he aware of some credible study that shows unauthorized aliens from say Ireland or Canada, or some other country tend to put their cars on blocks and/or overcrowd apartments? Kris Kobach and Senator Pearce owe Arizonans and the nation an immediate explanation. Note: it appears the email was written by Kobach on Wednesday evening before his op-ed ran in the New York Times the next morning. The op-ed argued that the Arizona law as written was legal. If he was working on changing it why then did he let the New York Times piece run?

This bill was also followed up by a bill banning ethnic studies and the push for a law that would challenge the 14th amendment.

ETA: As well as a "birther" sponsored bill that would require all candidates to prove citizenship.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

if that's the case, then Judge Bolton should not have struck down the key portions of it that more or less allow for profiling then, right?

she stated that the "racial profiling" argument was speculative and would require that the be in place to prove. she didn't strike anything down. she put it on hold for further litigation.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...-kobach-email/




This bill was also followed up by a bill banning ethnic studies and the push for a law that would challenge the 14th amendment.

ETA: As well as a "birther" sponsored bill that would require all candidates to prove citizenship.

sooo....cars on blocks = hispanic?

or too many people in a house = hispanic?


btw, i vehemently disagree with the subsequent bills proposed.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by starang21

she stated that the "racial profiling" argument was speculative and would require that the be in place to prove. she didn't strike anything down. she put it on hold for further litigation.

True, my mistake...however, for that reasoning alone with the history that the US has with police officers gunning down minorities that 'fit the description' (and getting away with it), I think it's very wise to make sure that Hispanics have a fairer crack at due process than other minorities in the US have had when it comes down to facing law enforcement.



Arizona is not New York.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

ETA: As well as a "birther" sponsored bill that would require all candidates to prove citizenship.

Say what you want about the origins of the bill but I don't see any problem with a bill proposing that elected officials prove that they are eligible for public office.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

sooo....cars on blocks = hispanic?

or too many people in a house = hispanic?


btw, i vehemently disagree with the subsequent bills proposed.

All those subsequent bills also speak to the intent of these lawmakers as well.

Those items target poor, hispanic, stereotypes and show no indication of being related to illegal immigration as a whole or with a racial-neutral perspective.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Say what you want about the origins of the bill but I don't see any problem with a bill proposing that elected officials prove that they are eligible for public office.

Pika...ask this...how long and under what circumstances did it take for legislators to all of a sudden decide that this was needed?

So what if we go back about 200 years and find out that a senator was born in say....Cuba.

(just off the cuff someone can investigate that if they want)

Does that invalidate their service?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Say what you want about the origins of the bill but I don't see any problem with a bill proposing that elected officials prove that they are eligible for public office.

As we were discussing intent, the intent is pertinent.

Can you describe a situation where an official has not done so? Why the pressing need to write this law now, for a federal office in one state? What if Joe Secretary of State won't accept what 49 other states and the federal government have?

[agzg]

I thought the only office for which one must be a natural born citizen in order to run for and hold was the President.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

All those subsequent bills also speak to the intent of these lawmakers as well.

Those items target poor, hispanic, stereotypes and show no indication of being related to illegal immigration as a whole or with a racial-neutral perspective.

You know....some laws are like food, just because you don't see it in there doesn't mean that it's not in there.

(also called reading between the lines)

Just because the law doesn't specifically SPELL OUT that it's after certain groups of people doesn't mean it's not.

I think what starang is missing is simply this:

Nobody would be foolish enough to blantantly and in writing say aloud who or what this law is targeting. To me, it's just a common sense thing to figure out that doesn't require a ton of websites and stats to hide behind.

When you cut through the bullshit, it's plain to see that a whole bunch of people are very uncomfortable that the people who live in the same space as they don't look nor sound like them, don't share the same culture and for that matter, the same language...they go to their stores and places of business and they see less and less of themselves and it makes them angry and fearful and now they want to reclaim 'what's theirs.'

But, how do you reclaim something, how do you legalize something without looking like a complete racist asshole?

Make some laws that are vague enough(we are just going after the illegals) yet obvious enough (those illegals are hispanic BTW) to get the job done.

Starang...nobody is foolish enough to think that just because that law doesn't say it, that the lawmakers weren't thinking it.

They just realized that what worked in the 1700's and 1800's doesn't work in the 2000's.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Pika...ask this...how long and under what circumstances did it take for legislators to all of a sudden decide that this was needed?

So what if we go back about 200 years and find out that a senator was born in say....Cuba.

(just off the cuff someone can investigate that if they want)

Does that invalidate their service?

No it doesn't, and AFAIK one does not need to be born in the U.S. to be a senator or a governor, they can be naturalized ( Granholm and Arnold come to mind). Like I said, say what you want about the origins of the bill (birther movement) but I personally don't see how candidates having to prove themselves to be eligible for office is a bad thing. I'm also talking eligible in the broad sense, not just checking their birth certificate.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

I thought the only office for which one must be a natural born citizen in order to run for and hold was the President.

It's the only one of the federal ones that has that requirement. I don't know if some states have similar requirements for any state offices or not.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

No it doesn't, and AFAIK one does not need to be born in the U.S. to be a senator or a governor, they can be naturalized ( Granholm and Arnold come to mind). Like I said, say what you want about the origins of the bill (birther movement) but I personally don't see how candidates having to prove themselves to be eligible for office is a bad thing. I'm also talking eligible in the broad sense, not just checking their birth certificate.

But giving that power to elected officials in the states is of questionable benefit. Obama, for example, was born in Hawaii, is at least 35 (birthday's tomorrow apparently) and has lived in the US for at least 14 years. What do you do when some elected officials deny that despite evidence?

John McCain was born in Panama to 2 Americans - and had his status as natural born confirmed by Congress- is at least 35 and has lived here for at least 14 years.

Just because there's not a formal process, there are multiple vetting processes among Congress, the parties, the electors, the press, security clearance, etc.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's the only one of the federal ones that has that requirement. I don't know if some states have similar requirements for any state offices or not.

There's a lot of un-elected high level positions that require you to be a natural born citizen, i.e SECDEF.