Latest rightie meme: "New Arizona immigration law no different from Fed, California laws."

[arbusto_baboso]

I actually have had 2 people tell me that in as many days.

Can the DU legal eagles give me some ammo to shoot down this BS?

[barbtries]

1. yeah, thank you!

i heard that somewhere and can't remember where, that the AZ law is just the same as federal laws. i think it was in a comment on huffington post. but i find it extremely doubtful, and it's news to me if there is any such law in CA, where i was born, raised, and spent the first 52 years of my life.

[enki23]

3. just for a start...

there is no federal that specifically authorizes citizens to sue the government for failing to enforce immigration to their particular satisfaction.

[arbusto_baboso]

6. Another good point.

Thank you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I'm not familiar with CA's law, but...

The difference is in the details. In most places and I believe in federal law, if someone is ARRESTED, they can have their paperwork checked for immigration status. In Arizona, one can be asked to verify immigration status without any suspicion of other criminal activity. That's a major, major difference.

[arbusto_baboso]

4. Good catch. And an important disctinction.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[EFerrari]

5. AZ law also criminalizes immigration violations &

invites law suits against LEOs for lack of enforcement. Federal law doesn't do that.

Not to mention, immigration law is federal, not state, jurisdiction.

They've been using this meme since Day 1. It's bs.

[kctim]

8. Not true

The AZ law says it can be done during the enforcement of another law or ordinance etc...

[EFerrari]

12. Which is a red herring because police can always find a reason to stop you.

Its inclusion in this POS doesn't fool anyone with a brain.

/typo

[kctim]

14. "It's inclusion?"

Well, at least you are now admitting that is what the law actually says.

Hidden agenda eh? Now where have we all heard that before?
Just like the government can always find a reason not to treat your illness in order to save money? Or maybe force you to meet with government doctors and discuss end of life scenarios in hopes of swaying you? Force you to stand in front of some sort of 'panel?'

In spite of what the actual law says, uninformed fear based cries of "death panels" and "papers please" still ignore the facts in order to cloud the issue so as to gain support of a particular political POV.

[EFerrari]

15. No, I'm not finally admitting anything.

I showed you both versions of the bill days ago.

And, no, I have no hidden agenda here: this is a racist law written by a hate group. That you continue to defend it, again, reflects on you.

[kctim]

16. Very true

you did show both versions of the bill, but I am sorry to say that still did not change what the law actually says. I even copied and pasted it and it still would not change.

I also understand, and even respect, that you're OPINION is that it is a racist law. But, and I am sorry to report, you're OPINION also does not change what the law actually says.

[EFerrari]

18. The law says that AZ LEOs can ask for papers based on their

"reasonable suspicion". Parse that.


ETA: Or don't. AZ LEOs are suing the state for putting them in a no win situation. So not even law enforcement officers in AZ are behind this racist train wreck.

[kctim]

22. We have already had this discussion E

The actual law says "IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable suspicion exists"

Those are NOT my words and I have NOT parsed them to say what I want them to say. If I was going to do that, I would be parsing the words 'reasonable suspicion' out and saying LE can demand 'papers please' whenever they want.

[EFerrari]

23. There is no objective measure for "reasonable suspicion"

that doesn't include racial profiling.

[blondeatlast]

24. It really is as simple as that.

I sincerely doubt Arizona's senior vistors from Canada are worried about being asked to present--anymore than I am.

[kctim]

26. Interesting

Is it racial profiling when a person gets a ticket or detained for not having proof of insurance when they are pulled over? Or does that give the officer a "reasonable suspicion" that I may be breaking the law by driving without insurance? Both have happened to me.

Look, I see the point yourself and the ACLU are making, I just don't agree that it is honest to say that the law allows any cop to ask any person for their 'papers please' anytime they want. Its just not true.

[Crabby Appleton]

7. see California Penal Code 834b

simalar but not quite the same - persons arrested.

[jp11]

9. I'm not a lawyer.

I was under the impression that the police could not ask about papers unless in the context of enforcing laws they were involved with the person. The idea of being stopped for speeding was used as an example, and when I saw interviews it was stated they could not simply stop you on the street for no reason and ask for papers.


The following may not have been signed yet I got tired of searching through all the blogs/news stories about boycotts on AZ etc.

The Arizona House approved several new changes to Arizona's new immigration law
. The changes still need final approval from the Senate before being passed along to the governor. If Gov. Jan Brewer supports them, they would go into effect at the same time the new law would.
The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.
The word "solely" would be eliminated from the sentence "A law enforcement official or agency … may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in establishing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/arizona-lawmakers-clarify-lawful-contact

For the record while the changes seem to be better I can argue that a police officer can come up with several reasons for a lawful stop or detention such as an outdated ordinance. At the very least it allows a LEO to not ask for papers unless they are involved with a person for a real 'crime/stop' but it is up to the officer if they want to stop people for say 'wearing blue jeans on a weekday if an ordinance prohibits it.

[EFerrari]

13. But it still puts all Latinos, citizens, residents and undocumented

in the way of more police contact. That's discrimination.

[ItNerd4life]

10. Sorry, but they are correct. Holder hasn't gone after AZ because

they can't find a way to say it doesn't match the federal law. As a matter of fact, it's more fair than the federal law.

The federal law states that all immigrants must carry their papers with them and can be checked at any time.

Arizona law states they must have been breaking another law, before they can be checked for papers. Originally, that wasn't in the law, but they added it to it.

I would love to see the border shut down so that more people from other continents like Africa and Asia can come into this country, legally.

[EFerrari]

11. No, that's wrong. And the patch AZ put in the amended version

still depends upon "reasonable suspicion" which translates to "racial profiling".

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. I thought it was the federal law, practically verbatim nt

[EFerrari]

19. What part of federal law says that law enforcement officers can be sued

for non-enforcement?

No, not even close. And that argument skirts the fact that immigration law is a federal matter. I could "mirror" federal law, too, but that wouldn't make immigration issues my purview.

[gmoney]

20. Not so recent... Boortz has been saying this for weeks...

[arbusto_baboso]

21. Ah. So we KNOW it's bullshit then.

:evilgrin:

[gmoney]

25. Probably... although they keep getting our guys on tape saying they've not read the bill

Obama, Holder, and someone else recently have all been asked if they've read the 10-page bill, and they've not been able to say they have. :/

I tried to read it, but I'm somewhat legalese-challenged.

[EFerrari]

27. You don't actually need to read the whole bill to know that immigration

is a federal matter, not a state matter.