Arizona governor signs immigration bill

[DaemonSeid]

Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the United States legally, which critics say will foster racial profiling but supporters say will crack down on illegal immigration.

The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.

"This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States," Brewer said after signing the bill.

"Racial profiling is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona," Brewer said.

The rules, to be established in by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board, are due back to her in May. The law goes into effect 90 days after the close of the legislative session, which has not been determined.

Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime.

Brewer's executive order was in response to critics who argue that the new law will lead to racial profiling, saying that most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.

"As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement accountable should this stature ever be misused to violate an individual's rights," Brewer said.

She added that the law would probably be challenged in courts and that there are those outside Arizona who have an interest in seeing the state fail with the new measure.

"We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves."

The bill is considered to be among the toughest immigration measures in the nation. Supporters say the measure is needed to fill a void left by the federal government's failure to enforce its immigration laws.


link

GC Legal eagles...will this stand up in the Supreme Court?

[Kevin]

I guess these guys haven't heard of the supremacy clause.

[AOII Angel]

I haven't so tell me about it, Kevin.

I am amazed about this law. As much as they might think illegal immigrants are a problem, do they really think it's okay to go up to anyone who "looks" like an illegal and require them to prove their not? I just foresee a lot of discrimination against American citizens who happen to be of latin descent. I think immigration is an important issue, but you can't impact a group of law-abiding American citizens unfairly to attack the problem.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I haven't so tell me about it, Kevin.

I am amazed about this law. As much as they might think illegal immigrants are a problem, do they really think it's okay to go up to anyone who "looks" like an illegal and require them to prove their not? I just foresee a lot of discrimination against American citizens who happen to be of latin descent. I think immigration is an important issue, but you can't impact a group of law-abiding American citizens unfairly to attack the problem.

Just don't be caught DWH ...hehehe

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I guess these guys haven't heard of the supremacy clause.

considering that this law was written by lawyers, i'm willing to bet they have.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starang21

considering that this law was written by lawyers, i'm willing to bet they have.

If you've been following the antics of a certain Harvard grad District Attorney in Maricopa County, you'd believe as I do, that though they have heard about things like the Supremacy Clause, they don't think those things apply to them.

We had a similar law in Oklahoma, although admittedly weaker than Arizona's law. It was struck down by the 10th Circuit on preemption grounds holding that federal law both expressly and impliedly preempted the Oklahoma laws.

State laws are expressly preempted by federal law when either Congress has already enacted a statutory scheme intended to occupy the field or when it becomes a physical impossibility to comply with both the federal and state laws. When it comes to immigration, there is a statutory scheme on the books and at least one federal agency whose sole purpose is to fight illegal immigration. If there's no argument for an intent to occupy the field here, I don't think there's one anywhere.

Further, a law can be impliedly preempted. One way for that to happen is if the new law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress.

Congress has chosen, through inaction mostly, to have a semi-porous border with our Southern neighbor. It is federal policy to encourage immigration. The Arizona law would seem to interfere with the objectives of Congress, giving state officials unfettered power to over-enforce Congress' statutory scheme, bringing about an end result which few would claim was what Congress had in mind when enacting the current statutory scheme.

For the above reasons, just about all of Oklahoma's laws, which at the time (Google Oklahoma and HB1804 from 2007) were the strongest in the country were held unconstitutional on preemption grounds. The only part which was allowed to stand was a voluntary ID-check thingamajig for employers where employers were given some sort of incentive to check the immigration status of new employees through a federal database called EVerify.

I don't actually know anyone who uses that system though.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you've been following the antics of a certain Harvard grad District Attorney in Maricopa County, you'd believe as I do, that though they have heard about things like the Supremacy Clause, they don't think those things apply to them.

We had a similar law in Oklahoma, although admittedly weaker than Arizona's law. It was struck down by the 10th Circuit on preemption grounds holding that federal law both expressly and impliedly preempted the Oklahoma laws.

State laws are expressly preempted by federal law when either Congress has already enacted a statutory scheme intended to occupy the field or when it becomes a physical impossibility to comply with both the federal and state laws. When it comes to immigration, there is a statutory scheme on the books and at least one federal agency whose sole purpose is to fight illegal immigration. If there's no argument for an intent to occupy the field here, I don't think there's one anywhere.

Further, a law can be impliedly preempted. One way for that to happen is if the new law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress.

Congress has chosen, through inaction mostly, to have a semi-porous border with our Southern neighbor. It is federal policy to encourage immigration. The Arizona law would seem to interfere with the objectives of Congress, giving state officials unfettered power to over-enforce Congress' statutory scheme, bringing about an end result which few would claim was what Congress had in mind when enacting the current statutory scheme.

For the above reasons, just about all of Oklahoma's laws, which at the time (Google Oklahoma and HB1804 from 2007) were the strongest in the country were held unconstitutional on preemption grounds. The only part which was allowed to stand was a voluntary ID-check thingamajig for employers where employers were given some sort of incentive to check the immigration status of new employees through a federal database called EVerify.

I don't actually know anyone who uses that system though.

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

i couldn't figure out explicitly how this law is going to implemented. but i figure that something to the affect that the everify thing that you mentioned would be a good idea.

and from what i'm gathering from your post, the state has no right to fight illegal immigration because there's a federal agency already existing to do so?

so you're saying that it's congress's explicit policy to encourage immigration or it's interpreted policy through inaction?

[DrPhil]

This is why discrimination is based on outcome and not intent. The intent of this new law is more along the lines of buffering some of the effects of illegal immigration that has hit some states harder than others.

The outcome will definitely be racial and ethnic profiling and an uneasiness when anyone who looks like "one of them" is seen.

Meanwhile, Black folks are like "how you like dem apples," just like Blacks asked East Indians after Sept. 11.

Meanwhile2, this is when being a Black Hispanic and a white Hispanic really kicks ass because your ethnic identity is overshadowed by your racial identity.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Meanwhile2, this is when being a...white Hispanic really kicks ass because your ethnic identity is overshadowed by your racial identity.

IDK about the "kick ass" part, but I was told this when I complained about the bill. "What are you complaining about, it's not like they are gonna stop you!"

I understand what the governor was trying to accomplish with this bill, but the outcome (like DrPhil said) will just be wrong.

I like how people are saying this WON'T turn into racial profiling because illegal Hispanics aren't the only "illegals"--you got people from the Asian countries, as well as European ones. Yeah, like the cops will really stop a white man and say "let me see your papers, I think you might be here illegally."

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by epchick

IDK about the "kick ass" part, but I was told this when I complained about the bill. "What are you complaining about, it's not like they are gonna stop you!"

I understand what the governor was trying to accomplish with this bill, but the outcome (like DrPhil said) will just be wrong.

I like how people are saying this WON'T turn into racial profiling because illegal Hispanics aren't the only "illegals"--you got people from the Asian countries, as well as European ones. Yeah, like the cops will really stop a white man and say "let me see your papers, I think you might be here illegally."

This bill is a hot topic in this area but I think people need to simmer down and see how AZ police plan to enforce it. A local radio station was saying that if you are US citizen hispanic/latino and don't have your birth certificate on you when pulled over in AZ that you'll be deported. SO NOT TRUE. I think that there are a lot of scare tactics being used to attack this bill, sort of like the death panels, health care rationing rumors that were going on last year in regards to health care reform.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

This bill is a hot topic in this area but I think people need to simmer down and see how AZ police plan to enforce it. A local radio station was saying that if you are US citizen hispanic/latino and don't have your birth certificate on you when pulled over in AZ that you'll be deported. SO NOT TRUE. I think that there are a lot of scare tactics being used to attack this bill, sort of like the death panels, health care rationing rumors that were going on last year in regards to health care reform.

Little tit for tat? The problem is, they specifically said that you don't have to be suspected of any crime to be checked.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Little tit for tat? The problem is, they specifically said that you don't have to be suspected of any crime to be checked.

Oh, being here illegally ISN'T a crime?

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

A lot of cities have identified themselves as "sanctuary" cities where police and non immigration related Gov agencies are prohibited from asking an individual any questions about citizenship or immigration status. With this law being passed it allows local police to run immigration checks on anyone who gives probable cause.

I know. I live in a sanctuary city.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Little tit for tat? The problem is, they specifically said that you don't have to be suspected of any crime to be checked.

This is exactly why I made my post about border patrol checkpoints. Everyone thinks that once you make it through the border crossing you're good to go but the federal government operates mobile border patrol checkpoints. I've been stopped and asked to identity my country of origin numerous times. After I provide ID I'm sent on my way. No crime was committed and I was not suspected of any crime other than illegal immigration. I don't see the difference between what the border patrol does and what the AZ police will now start doing.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by epchick

IDK about the "kick ass" part, but I was told this when I complained about the bill. "What are you complaining about, it's not like they are gonna stop you!"

I understand what the governor was trying to accomplish with this bill, but the outcome (like DrPhil said) will just be wrong.

I like how people are saying this WON'T turn into racial profiling because illegal Hispanics aren't the only "illegals"--you got people from the Asian countries, as well as European ones. Yeah, like the cops will really stop a white man and say "let me see your papers, I think you might be here illegally."

the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens are of hispanic descent. 10 million of the 12 million illegals are hispanic. are the hispanic cops going to be practicing racial profiling?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by starang21

are the hispanic cops going to be practicing racial profiling?

Yes.

Just like Black police officers engaged in racial profiling and DWB, even if they engaged in it reluctantly. It was partly a means of earning their stripes and, for some, it was a means of distinguishing themselves as different than "dem n------s."

Racial profiling is a practice like institutional discrimination. You don't have to be white (or not a member the targeted group) to engage in such discriminatory practices.