Wow! This Arizona Immigration Law is crazy!

[IndianaJoe]

I just read the first couple of pages carefully and noticed a few things:

1. The law prevents any city, town or political subdivision from declaring itself a “sanctuary city” where immigration laws are not enforced by local law enforcement authorities.

2. The new Arizona law allows state officials to inquire into the immigration status of any person based upon "reasonable suspicion":

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

3. Section 13-1509 of the law provides that a person is guilty of the crime of trespassing if the person is both: "present on any public or private land in this state" and in violation of federal immigration statutes. The statute further provides that there is no eligibility for "suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served." This basically means that a judge can’t elect to suspend a sentence he imposes for the trespass. The alien has to actually do any jail time the Court imposes.

4. The above “trespassing” provision would seem to have a bootstrapping effect as well. I say this because another provision of the law requires an alien convicted of any violation of law to be transferred, after serving his sentence, to Federal authorities for removal. Thus, an illegal who is convicted of “trespassing” after serving his sentence would be summarily turned over to ICE for removal proceedings.

5. The law permits any local law enforcement official to arrest without a warrant any person that he has probable cause to believe has committed “any public offense” that would make the alien removable from the U.S. This provision thus puts an untrained Arizona cop in the position of having to interpret the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act’s extremely complicated removal provisions. This is sure to be trouble.

What offenses, for example, can give rise to making a Green Card holder or someone present in the U.S. on Temporary Protected Status or asylum status removable? Is the offense in question a “crime involving moral turpitude” under the INA? Good luck with this, Arizona!

5. The statute also has an anti-solicitation of workers (often called day laborers) provision of the type that has been held unconstitutional under the First Amendment, see Town of Herndon v. Thomas, MI-2007-644 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 29, 2007) ; Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 475 F. Supp. 2d 952, 962 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

6. The law allows any person “to bring an action in Superior Court” to challenge any State or local official or agency that “adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts enforcement of Federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by Federal law.

Hell, even ICE doesn’t enforce the INA to the fullest possible extent. If it did, the Federal courts would be swamped with cases. Moreover,ICE doesn’t have the manpower to do it. Does this mean every Arizona town has to hire more cops to insure that Federal laws are being enforced by local officials “to the maximum extent permitted by Federal law?” Woo hoo! This is a lawyers dream.

Consider the monetary implications here too!

If the person bringing the lawsuit wins his case the Court “shall” order any of the following:

A. That the person bringing the suit may recover his attorneys’ fees and court costs incurred in successfully prosecuting the lawsuit.

B. That the official or agency losing the lawsuit pay a civil penalty of no less than $1,000 but no more than $5,000 for each day that the policy has been in effect starting from the day when the person’s suit was filed!

This is almost laughable. Does the official have to pay with his own funds? Suppose after two or three years of litigation, the city loses. Where does it get the money to pay a $5,000 a day fine?


I'm a lawyer. This statute is a lawyer's bonanza! I need to get licensed in Arizona!

[hlthe2b]

1. Part of me wants to see a massive boycott... so that they lose

all conventions and tourism business and perhaps hit in other sectors as well. Then I think about the working people that would hurt--the very ones who are going to be most impacted by this law and I think a bit differently. I don't know what the immediate answer is, as I do think, long term, this will be thrown out by the courts... But how best to speed that process along? :shrug:

Racist bastards...

[Mari333]

2. let them know it

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44600886044&v=wall&ref=search

[madmax]

4. BOYCOTT

Worked for Martin and the bus boycott. Those who participated and walked suffered but, they didn't give up or in. And they won. :fistbump:

[madmax]

3. This is going to be interesting.

Will the law stand? How does this affect McCain or J.D. Nutcase

:popcorn:

Any thoughts, opinions, inside info ;)

[Bobbieo]

5. First of all. we are entering the hot summer season for AZ and the

snowbirds are gone. Wait until fall - the snowbirds and lettuce season and see if the bill is still enforced. Bet there will be a lot of changes by then.

[Berserker]

12. Just one more reason

to dislike Arizona. I sometimes go to Arizona in the winter and I think the people that call me a snowbird can kiss my ass. Do you mean the influx of Midwestern people that bring many millions into your state every year? I have seen bumper stickers that said "Welcome to Arizona now go home" What a fuckin treat you Zonies are.
I loved the state and most of the people but when I read shit like that it pisses me off.

[ashling]

6. I read it this morning

(BTW, another lawyer here)

At first it just looked ridiculously vague. And then I got to the trespassing part - HOLY SHIT!

[IndianaJoe]

7. Right. Amazing, isn't it?

I enjoy the anonymous complaints to the AG that he is duty bound to investigate.

So a plausible scenario is the AG gets an anonymous letter (the mere fact that an official form is not employed is irrelevant under the statute), so a cop is then sent to knock on the door of a Hispanic's apartment. The Hispanic doesn't speak much English and is watching the Mexican soccer league on television. The cop is "reasonably suspicious" and this is a "lawful contact" wit the Mexican under the statute (he's investigating a citizen complaint, right?). So the cop asks for an ID and the Mexican gives him a Conditional Green Card. The cop runs a criminal background check and determines the Mexican has a Public Intoxication conviction on his record. The cop checks his handy pamphlet on the immigration laws and determines that a conviction for a "crime involving moral turpitude" within 5 years of the alien's getting his GC is grounds for removal. He scratches his head and wonders if Public Intox is a CIMT. He decides, what the hell, he's committed a violation of a public law and goes ahead and arrests the alien. If he doesn't, he might not be "enforcing the Federal immigration laws to the maximum extent", right? He doesn't want to get sued. So he cuffs the alien and takes him away -- charging him with "trespass" and a violation of the "violation of the public law" provisions of the new statute. Turns out, he goofed. Public Intox isn't a CIMT. The cop and the city then gets sued for False Arrest. I'd take the case!

[WolverineDG]

10. I'm just enough of a bitch to start calling in anonymous tips

& turning in members of the country club, fundie churches, members of the GOP.....and if they don't investigate, THEN I can tie up the AG's office!!

:evilgrin:

dg

[ashling]

13. Call in anonymous tips whenever there is a tea bagging

"There are a lot of alien looking people trespassing in questionable attire. And from the things they have written, they don't speak english very well."

[IndianaJoe]

8. It's sort of hard to trespass in one's own home.

But if you're illegal, that's trespass in Arizona! LOL What a place!

[WolverineDG]

11. and don't you first have to be given a warning

before being busted for trespassing? :shrug:

dg

[IndianaJoe]

18. Not in Arizona.

And no arrest warrant is needed. All the cop needs to arrest the alien under the statute, if I remember rightly, is "probable cause". So he can make a warrantless arrest and then establish whether there was "probable cause" to do so in a later hearing when the alien is haled before a State criminal judge. Probably unconstitutional, but I'd need to re-read it and look at some authority.

[WolverineDG]

9. So are they also going to go after the DAs for not pursuing trespassing?

Christ on a crutch! They have their hands full already with REAL criminals! So now AZ gets to clog its courts & jails with trespassing cases. :eyes:

dg

[treestar]

15. That was my first thought

They won't be able to enforce it anyway. It gives them a way to jail illegals just for being illegal. Extra jail space they will need.

[David__77]

14. I hope every radical activist in the country descends on Arizona.

Every anarchist, every communist, all of them. I want a confrontation.

[treestar]

16. It really is a lawyer's full employment act

How can a state determination that the alien is illegal be made? They will be wrong much of the time. The federal government will not accept the state determination. That's up to the federal government. Why would they take an Arizona court's word for it?

No one should ever plead guilty to this "crime." Make them take it to trial and in some cases, make themselves look stupid, trying to figure out what the immigration law is.

[IndianaJoe]

17. You're absolutely right.

This law is, from a legal standpoint, absolutely looney, batshit crazy! It's probably violative of the Supremacy Clause. Other decisions have held that the INA is a federal law and within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal authorities to enforce. By the way, violations of the INA are civil and not criminal. Arizona, crazily, is sort of making a civil violation of Federal law a State law criminal violation. As a lawyer, I find that real zany!

[treestar]

20. Supremacy Clause

Congress preempting a field is possible under constitutional law - Immigration is specifically a federal power in the Constitution - so it's plainly unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

I bet there is even a case for an injunction against their enforcing it - it is so plainly unconstitutional.

[Odin2005]

19. This sounds written for the exact purpose of harassing Hispanics.