Arizona governor signs changes into immigration law

[jefferson_dem]

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that makes changes to a controversial new state immigration law, saying the changes should ease concerns about racial profiling.

"These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling," Brewer said in a statement after the signing. "These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

But opponents challenged that assertion in the run-up to Brewer's signing of the changes into law on Friday.

"It doesn't deter anything," said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the Arizona ACLU. "It's not a serious hurdle."

Pochoda said that law enforcement officers -- under strong pressure to find and remove illegal immigrants -- could still identify people by race and then look for a minor infraction as an excuse to investigate them.



Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/30/arizona.immigration.law.changes/

[Duer 157099]

1. Here's the relevent quote

"Arizona's law originally said that the attorney general or a county attorney cannot investigate complaints based "solely" on factors such as a person's race, color or national origin. The changes enacted Friday remove the word "solely" to emphasize that prosecutors must have some reason other than an individual's race or national origin to investigate."

[IndianaJoe]

3. Sounds like they're trying to tweak it.

The original bill that Brewer signed required the Arizona AG to investigate all complaints -- even anonymous ones. I don't know how her tweak squares with the original language.

[Xipe Totec]

2. The pucker amendment nt

[Jefferson23]

4. She must be dreaming if she thinks this will end the legal challenges to come.

[SnakeEyes]

7. Of course it won't.

Regardless of if the law was constitutional or not, groups would still challenge on the hope for a miracle victory.

These changes do make it tough for them to win. Especially with the racial element completely removed. They'll have to wait for someone to be illegally harmed by it to have legal standing and for the case to anywhere.

[Jefferson23]

8. I have no confidence the racial element has been removed enough, so we'll see.

Groups would still challenge regardless if the law was constitutional or not? Why do you believe that?

[SnakeEyes]

9. So far this is what I've seen...

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

[tavalon]

11. That should take about two minutes

[Jefferson23]

5. She'll have to answer to this officer too:

Tucson cop first to sue to block AZ immigration law


By Brian J. Pedersen Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:24 am | Comments



Tucson Police Department officer Martin H. Escobar, a 15-year veteran, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging SB 1070, Arizona's new immigration law.


A Tucson police officer has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law, claiming the legislation will hinder police investigations in Hispanic-prevalent areas.

The suit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Tucson by Officer Martin H. Escobar, also claims SB 1070 would make police focus more on immigration than helping people in need.

"What are we saying to the undocumented who are victims of crimes, what are we saying to the undocumented who are critical witnesses to crimes?" said Escobar's attorney, Richard Martinez.

The suit also claims the new law, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed on April 23, violates several constitutional rights and also violates federal law because the Tucson Police Department and the city have no authority to perform immigration duties.

Escobar, 45, a 15-year veteran of TPD, noted in the lawsuit his experience patrolling the Hispanic-heavy Operations Division South indicates there's no racially neutral criteria that can be used by officers to determine whether a person is in the country illegally.

"Hey, there's a lot of people lawfully who speak Spanish; there's a lot of people who speak with an accent," Martinez said. "Those tell you that they're Latino or Hispanic or Mexican, but they don't tell you anything about their document status."


remainder: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_e8a094d4-53ab-11df-92c8-001cc4c002e0.html

[SnakeEyes]

6. I don't see this suit going anywhere

I don't see how suing on the speculation that another law would hinder police investigations can be a valid legal argument. Also I think he's wrong in saying states/cities don't have authority to "perform immigration duties." What states don't have the authority to do is with regard to allowing immigration, immigration process, and deportation. Under this law illegals will be handed off to immigration officials. That already happens in many states. This law says it's also now a state crime to be in AZ without proper documentation. And the police are charged with enforcing that.

[atreides1]

10. Guess what

"This law says it's also now a state crime to be in AZ without proper documentation"



Neither an ID card or driver's license can be considered proper documentation, because neither determines if you're an American citizen, or if you're in this country legally.

And since Social Security cards can be forged, it's not proof either.

Which means that everyone in Arizona will have to carry a birth certificate that shows where they were born, or if here legally, a green card.

Now's the time to get a US Passport.

[tavalon]

12. Or, conversely, don't go to Arizona, ever

It's a choice I and many of my fellow liberals are quite ready, willing and able to implement.

[Bette Noir]

13. From where I live, I have to drive through about 10 miles of Arizona in order to get to Utah.

I put my passport in my purse, for when nicking the corner of AZ is inevitable.

[tavalon]

14. Carry a copy of the Constitution as well

They have pocket sized ones and it might be a teachable moment.

[Igel]

15. Read the law.

It's not really all that long, even as amended.

Oh, and you've just condemned all tourists and refugees to being deported, and possibly permitted all illegal immigrants that can prove they're foreign nationals to remain.

I'll be in AZ in a few weeks. My TX DL is fine. How do I know? I read the law. Under the terms of the law, my TX DL orders law enforcement to presume that I'm there legally. At that point they need more than "reasonable suspicion" to check into my background.

And, granted, some cop could, under that law, say he thinks my DL is fraudulent and run me in. But he could do that anyway. Might not get me deported, but it would cause me world of grief.