Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

[Blake]

Accusing Arizona of trying to "second guess" the federal government, the Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration policy -- claiming the "invalid" law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities and "must be struck down."

The suit names the state of Arizona as well as Gov. Jan Brewer as defendants. In it, the Justice Department claims the federal government has "preeminent authority" on immigration enforcement and that the Arizona law "disrupts" that balance. It urges the U.S. District Court in Arizona to "preliminarily and permanently" prohibit the state from enforcing the law, which is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the month.

"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement. "But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety."

...........

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/justice-department-file-suit-arizona-early-tuesday/

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like the federal government is fast becoming the enemy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Looks like the federal government is fast becoming the enemy.

or republican governors are trying to make the President look bad.. wierd how they all stood up to obama and not bush.. couldn't be political in anyway.....

[boutons_deux]

yeah, none of this shit happened while the Repugs were in power and DID NOTHING about securing the borders or resolving the status of illegal immigrants.

Same story with federal deficits.

And which Dem gov/AG are suing to stop the health care reform?

[CosmicCowboy]

Holder is gonna get his ass kicked. I hope it goes to court soon.

[George Gervin's Afro]

yeah, none of this shit happened while the Repugs were in power and DID NOTHING about securing the borders or resolving the status of illegal immigrants.

Same story with federal deficits.

And which Dem gov/AG are suing to stop the health care reform?

they didn't want the GOP congress or President to look bad..

[TeyshaBlue]

Holder is gonna get his ass kicked. I hope it goes to court soon.

I dunno. In my very unstudied opinion, it appears that matters of borders and protection fall pretty much in the exclusive purview of the Fed.

[Winehole23]

Holder is gonna get his ass kicked.Why do you think so? I'd guess just the opposite. When states encroach on federal prerogatives, they usually get their asses kicked.

[TeyshaBlue]

^^^^^^What he said^^^^^^^:lol

[EmptyMan]

State of AZ will win.

[Winehole23]

Synchronicity is a bitch. :toast

[Winehole23]

State of AZ will win.Why? B/c you want them to?

[Wild Cobra]

or republican governors are trying to make the President look bad.. wierd how they all stood up to obama and not bush.. couldn't be political in anyway.....

LOL

LOL

LOL

You joking? President Obama needs no help looking bad!

[EmptyMan]

Why? B/c you want them to?

Want? I have no wants in this. It is what it is.

Either way, we get closer to the breaking point where logic will be the only option left on the table.

[CosmicCowboy]

The nice thing about the courts is they deal in facts.

The state law simply mirrors the federal law. It says that if they suspect the persons they have detained for other crimes/transgressions are illegal they will inform the Feds for further investigation/enforcement. They aren't proposing to enforce Federal law.

[Winehole23]

Can you amplify on that a bit? "It is what it is" isn't really a reason.

[Winehole23]

The nice thing about the courts is they deal in facts.

The state law simply mirrors the federal law.If AZ LE detains illegal aliens and binds them over to federal authorities, how is that not enforcing federal law?

Also, it would seem to me that if the AZ law "mirrors" federal law AZ is straightforwardly arrogating a federal function to itself.

[CosmicCowboy]

If AZ LE detains illegal aliens and binds them over to federal authorities, how is that not enforcing federal law?

Also, it would seem to me that if the AZ law "mirrors" federal law AZ is straightforwardly arrogating a federal function to itself.

They will be initially detained for violation of state law.

Arizona will simply call the feds in to do their job after that.

Thats why I'm pleased it will be tried in a court and not an internet forum.

Holder is gonna get his ass kicked.

[Winehole23]

To say nothing at all of the international dimension of the furore. The AZ law could be taken as an untoward imposition on the US's foreign policy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL

LOL

LOL

You joking? President Obama needs no help looking bad!

why didn't these states challenge bush?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Thats why I'm pleased it will be tried in a court and not an internet forum.

Holder is gonna get his ass kicked.

so states can now enforce laws that are exclusive to the fed govt halleluah!

yeah holder is going to get his ass kicked..:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

why didn't these states challenge bush?
He may not have been the smartest president, but he most certainly wasn't the dumbest, like Obama may take first place for.

[Winehole23]

Thats why I'm pleased it will be tried in a court and not an internet forum.

Holder is gonna get his ass kicked.Sir: you didn't answer my question.

[George Gervin's Afro]

why didn't these states challenge bush?

[Wild Cobra]

so states can now enforce laws that are exclusive to the fed govt halleluah!

yeah holder is going to get his ass kicked..:rolleyes
Show me how immigration law is exclusive to the federal government please. I didn't take "piss on the constitution 101."

[CosmicCowboy]

so states can now enforce laws that are exclusive to the fed govt halleluah!

yeah holder is going to get his ass kicked..:rolleyes

Did you actually read the law dumb ass?

They aren't being detained for being "suspected illegal aliens".

They are stopped/detained for State law violations.

The State then informs the feds that they have what appears to be illegal aliens in their possession that then become the Feds responsibility to deal with.

The Feds then enforce Fed law.

The State isn't enforcing Fed law.

[Winehole23]

They will be initially detained for violation of state law.Immigration law is a federal function. So is detaining people for violations thereof.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did you actually read the law dumb ass?

They aren't being detained for being "suspected illegal aliens".

They are stopped/detained for State law violations.

The State then informs the feds that they have what appears to be illegal aliens in their possession that then become the Feds responsibility to deal with.

The Feds then enforce Fed law.

The State isn't enforcing Fed law.

so essentially nothing changes other than forcing local law enforcement to investigate possible federal crimes..


great waste of time and resources AZ..

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not going to continue to argue this in an ill-informed internet forum. Like I said, I'm glad Holder succumbed to political pressure and filed suit. He just stepped on his dick. He will get his ass kicked in court where it matters.

[Winehole23]

Making the administrative determination of someone's immigration status is also a federal function.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Show me how immigration law is exclusive to the federal government please. I didn't take "piss on the constitution 101."

since you don't want to piss on the constitution then I guess the 14th amendment is here to stay.. anchor babies will continue to thrive...because after all it's in the constituion...you wouldn't want to piss on that would you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm not going to continue to argue this in an ill-informed internet forum. Like I said, I'm glad Holder succumbed to political pressure and filed suit. He just stepped on his dick. He will get his ass kicked in court where it matters.

you still haven't explained how his ass is going to get kicked... should we just take your word for it?

[Winehole23]

I'm not going to continue to argue this in an ill-informed internet forum. Like I said, I'm glad Holder succumbed to political pressure and filed suit. He just stepped on his dick. He will get his ass kicked in court where it matters.So anyone who disagrees about the possible outcome is "ill-informed." Impatient much?:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

you still haven't explained how his ass is going to get kicked... should we just take your word for it?

[CosmicCowboy]

Holder will definitely lose at the first trial simply because his legal argument is so vapid and weak. This whole charade is political and not legal. Unfortunately, however, he may prevail on the first appeal. Arizona falls in the 9th District which is notorious for writing law instead of ruling on law...Then, the lower court decision will finally be confirmed when it goes to the Supreme Court.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Holder will definitely lose at the first trial simply because his legal argument is so vapid and weak. This whole charade is political and not legal. Unfortunately, however, he may prevail on the first appeal. Arizona falls in the 9th District which is notorious for writing law instead of ruling on law...Then, the lower court decision will finally be confirmed when it goes to the Supreme Court.

Well we can at least agree that this issue is a political charade and not legal..

[CosmicCowboy]

Making the administrative determination of someone's immigration status is also a federal function.

What a fucking dumbass post. The State makes a determination of suspicion on persons arrested for other violations and calls the feds. The feds make the determination of immigration status and enforces immigration law as it sees fit.

[Wild Cobra]

Well we can at least agree that this issue is a political charade and not legal..
And it's the current administration that is on the wrong side, therefore the ones definitely making this political.

[Winehole23]

(oops...my bad)

[Winehole23]

...

[Wild Cobra]

(I goofed.)
No shit.

Dammit, I was going to respond to it too...

[ElNono]

What a fucking dumbass post. The State makes a determination of suspicion on persons arrested for other violations and calls the feds. The feds make the determination of immigration status and enforces immigration law as it sees fit.

How you make a 'determination of suspicion' (whatever that is) without actually attempting to verify citizenship, which is indeed a function of Immigration law?
Or does every citizen pulled over for a state violation, citizen or not, is automatically held until the feds can determine their citizenship/immigration status?

[Winehole23]

What a fucking dumbass post.We don't see eye to eye. That doesn't make you, or me, a dumbass.

[Winehole23]

No shit.

Dammit, I was going to respond to it too...I fact-checked my own reply and came up short. Gotta be quick...

[CosmicCowboy]

How you make a 'determination of suspicion' (whatever that is) without actually attempting to verify citizenship, which is indeed a function of Immigration law?
Or does every citizen pulled over for a state violation, citizen or not, is automatically held until the feds can determine their citizenship/immigration status?

Any adult without a valid drivers license or any formal identification of any kind is a reasonable suspect. and don't give me that "what if he left it at home, shit"...in case you haven't noticed, cops have computers too. They can pull up a name/photo if the person is in the system.

[Winehole23]

Any adult without a valid drivers license or any formal identification of any kind is a reasonable suspect.Never want to live in that country. It's not the one I grew up in.

[Wild Cobra]

I fact-checked my own reply and came up short. Gotta be quick...
If I 'right-clicked-new-tab, I still would have had your words to quote. If I was faster thinking, I would have used the 'back" option.

[Winehole23]

Well, I was wrong and brought myself up short. The bill did not pass as originally proposed, and as a result I wrong-footed myself. You can take consolation in that.

[CosmicCowboy]

Never want to live in that country. It's not the one I grew up in.

It's not? You were required by law to have a birth certificate and social security number...You still have the opportunity to prove citizenship, but not having anything certainly establishes reasonable suspicion.

[ElNono]

Any adult without a valid drivers license or any formal identification of any kind is a reasonable suspect. and don't give me that "what if he left it at home, shit"...in case you haven't noticed, cops have computers too. They can pull up a name/photo if the person is in the system.

How about people that run a red light, and have a driver's license that read 'Temporary Immigration Status' on them (I had one of those up to about 6 months ago). Do they get a ticket or do they get held?

You know, the cop's computer doesn't link to the immigration system.

[Wild Cobra]

How about people that run a red light, and have a driver's license that read 'Temporary Immigration Status' on them (I had one of those up to about 6 months ago). Do they get a ticket or do they get held?

You know, the cop's computer doesn't link to the immigration system.
It was something that indicated you were here legally though, wasn't it?

[Winehole23]

It's not? You were required by law to have a birth certificate and social security number...You still have the opportunity to prove citizenship, but not having anything certainly establishes reasonable suspicion.Do you carry your birth certificate and SS card with you?

I never have. I never considered it a good idea, nor am I unaware of any law that requires me to do so. Suggesting that anyone who fails to present SS or birth certificate to LE at any lawful stop is inviting detention is outrageous, unfair and un-American to my mind.

[CosmicCowboy]

How about people that run a red light, and have a driver's license that read 'Temporary Immigration Status' on them (I had one of those up to about 6 months ago). Do they get a ticket or do they get held?

You know, the cop's computer doesn't link to the immigration system.

Are you telling me you had a drivers license whose expiration date wasn't the same as the expiration date of your green card? If that was the case, somebody screwed up.

[ElNono]

It was something that indicated you were here legally though, wasn't it?

Not really, just that I had a temporary residency as opposed to a permanent residency like I have now.

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you carry your birth certificate and SS card with you?

I never have. I never considered it a good idea, nor am I unaware of any law that requires me to do so. Suggesting that anyone who fails to present SS or birth certificate to LE at any lawful stop is inviting detention is outrageous, unfair and un-American to my mind.

No, I carry a drivers license which proves I am a citizen. If you don't drive the state has what they call "ID Cards" which prove the same thing and can be used for legal identification. If I didn't have that I would damn sure carry SOMETHING to prove I was a citizen.

[ElNono]

Are you telling me you had a drivers license whose expiration date wasn't the same as the expiration date of your green card? If that was the case, somebody screwed up.

Driver licenses are normally granted for 6 months past the green card expiration date, simply because it normally takes that long to obtain a new green card, which is mandatory to renew your driver's license.

But regardless of that, if the police is supposed to be asking for my green card or proof of citizenship, then he's indeed performing the duties of immigration law.

So what is it, ticket or held?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

To say nothing at all of the international dimension of the furore. The AZ law could be taken as an untoward imposition on the US's foreign policy.

Foreign policy <> domestic laws.

[ElNono]

No, I carry a drivers license which proves I am a citizen.

Except that driver licenses are no proof of citizenship or even lawful immigration status...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Never want to live in that country. It's not the one I grew up in.

You better not travel out of our country then. It's done everywhere else in the world (even Mexico, where their president is calling the Arizona law "racist").

I guess its racist if I go to Mexico and the Federales ask for my identification too, huh?

[CosmicCowboy]

Driver licenses are normally granted for 6 months past the green card expiration date, simply because it normally takes that long to obtain a new green card, which is mandatory to renew your driver's license.

But regardless of that, if the police is supposed to be asking for my green card or proof of citizenship, then he's indeed performing the duties of immigration law.

So what is it, ticket or held?

Considering that half the illegals in the country are here from overstating their green cards I would hold you ass till the feds verified you were OK...:lol

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Do you carry your birth certificate and SS card with you?

I never have. I never considered it a good idea, nor am I unaware of any law that requires me to do so. Suggesting that anyone who fails to present SS or birth certificate to LE at any lawful stop is inviting detention is outrageous, unfair and un-American to my mind.

Quit being so dense. A driver's license satisfies the requirement.

[Winehole23]

^^^Please clarify: what does "<>" mean?

That state laws trump the prerogative of the superior sovereign to conduct foreign policy?

[CosmicCowboy]

Except that driver licenses are no proof of citizenship or even lawful immigration status...

Actually, those of us that are born here have to provide a birth certificate to get an unrestricted license.

[Winehole23]

Quit being so dense. A driver's license satisfies the requirement.I'm not so sure about that. How do driving privileges relate to immigration status?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I think it's pretty easy to understand.

The given foreign policy of a given presidential administration does not necessarily equate to laws, particularly in our country.

[Winehole23]

You better not travel out of our country then. It's done everywhere else in the world (even Mexico, where their president is calling the Arizona law "racist").I don't give a damn what they do elsewhere. That doesn't make it proper for us.

[Wild Cobra]

Not really, just that I had a temporary residency as opposed to a permanent residency like I have now.
Temporary residency is still legal.

[Wild Cobra]

Not really, just that I had a temporary residency as opposed to a permanent residency like I have now.
Temporary residency is still legal. Such a card disallows them to have probable cause unless it's expired.

[rjv]

Holder will definitely lose at the first trial simply because his legal argument is so vapid and weak. This whole charade is political and not legal. Unfortunately, however, he may prevail on the first appeal. Arizona falls in the 9th District which is notorious for writing law instead of ruling on law...Then, the lower court decision will finally be confirmed when it goes to the Supreme Court.


and how has that supreme court been leaning lately?

[CosmicCowboy]

and how has that supreme court been leaning lately?

Still 5-4 interpreting the law and not judicial activist on most issues. Kagan won't change that.

[rjv]

Actually, those of us that are born here have to provide a birth certificate to get an unrestricted license.

or a passport

[CosmicCowboy]

or a passport

Everything still tracks back to the birth certificate. You have to have the birth certificate to get the passport.

[DarkReign]

This will be the case that ultimately leads to National ID cards. Just listen to yourselves...

Book it.

[rjv]

Still 5-4 interpreting the law and not judicial activist on most issues. Kagan won't change that.

the biggest problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that are ambiguous and sometimes no signs of immigration status that could give rise to 'reasonable suspicion'. that will be true regardless of whether the officials act on specific grounds or on the basis of a hunch gathered from less specific grounds. whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal 4th amendment context, its use in the arizona law is problematic.

if you say it is 5-4 in favor of the law as it stands how will they see that the precedent of terry v. ohio meets the standard of reasonable suspicion here?

[ChumpDumper]

They are stopped/detained for State law violations.That wasn't what the law said. It said during any lawful contact, law enforcement officials have to demand to see ID from anyone they suspect of being illegal.

Did they change it?

Do you have a new text?

[ElNono]

Considering that half the illegals in the country are here from overstating their green cards I would hold you ass till the feds verified you were OK...:lol

Half the illegals are overstaying their tourist visas...
Green cards are a whole lot harder and expensive to obtain...

[ElNono]

Actually, those of us that are born here have to provide a birth certificate to get an unrestricted license.

Not in Oregon you don't. Proof of residency in the state is enough. And it's not just Oregon.

[CosmicCowboy]

That wasn't what the law said. It said during any lawful contact, law enforcement officials have to demand to see ID from anyone they suspect of being illegal.

Did they change it?

Do you have a new text?

I don't know about you, but every time I have ever been stopped by the police the first words out of their mouth were "license and registration, please"

And no, this is what the law actually says...


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. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

[ElNono]

Temporary residency is still legal.

Only if it didn't expire.

[Wild Cobra]

Only if it didn't expire.
And the fact you had it still shows you did have legal status. Now, unless they have conflicting information, they have absolutely no probable cause to assume you are illegal.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not in Oregon you don't. Proof of residency in the state is enough. And it's not just Oregon.

Wrong

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/idproof.shtml#legal_presence

[ElNono]

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.THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

So a state LE officer or agency should make the determination of the immigration status against the federal immigration database/agency. Looks pretty clear to me.

[ElNono]

And the fact you had it still shows you did have legal status. Now, unless they have conflicting information, they have absolutely no probable cause to assume you are illegal.

Unless they can verify my green card, they have no way to know wether the temporary status is expired or not.

[Wild Cobra]

Not in Oregon you don't. Proof of residency in the state is enough. And it's not just Oregon.


Wrong

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/idproof.shtml#legal_presence
Oregon was one of the weakest links. Anyone could get a drivers license with any ID that showed who they were. That was changed a couple years ago by public pressure. You are both right/wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

So a state LE officer or agency should make the determination of the immigration status against the federal immigration database/agency. Looks pretty clear to me.

The feds clearly make the determination of immigration status.

What the fuck is your point?

[vy65]

I first thought the AZ law was an attempt to deport illegals, and clearly a usurpation of congress's plenary power over immigration. But reading the law I'm not so sure. On the one hand, it still looks to usurp some federal authority regarding the determination of alien status. On the other hand it just hands suspects over to customs and immigration.

I'm curious as to what "reasonable suspicion means" especially when combined with the "determine the status" prong of that first paragraph. What's the standard for reasonable suspicion? It's clearly not probable cause. Is it the same as what federal authorities use. And, do states have the power to interpret standards that are basically set by federal agencies, e.g., the INS?

Ultimately, the law still fails, probably. I'd like to hear from the laws apologists as to how the determination of immigration status doesn't intrude upon congress's plenary power on immigration.

[vy65]

I first thought the AZ law was an attempt to deport illegals, and clearly a usurpation of congress's plenary power over immigration. But reading the law I'm not so sure. On the one hand, it still looks to usurp some federal authority regarding the determination of alien status. On the other hand it just hands suspects over to customs and immigration.

I'm curious as to what "reasonable suspicion means" especially when combined with the "determine the status" prong of that first paragraph. What's the standard for reasonable suspicion? It's clearly not probable cause. Is it the same as what federal authorities use. And, do states have the power to interpret standards that are basically set by federal agencies, e.g., the INS?

Ultimately, the law still fails, probably. I'd like to hear from the laws apologists as to how the determination of immigration status doesn't intrude upon congress's plenary power on immigration.

[ElNono]

Wrong

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/idproof.shtml#legal_presence

Must be recent. Here's a 2005 Congressional report on states that don't verify status for issuing driver licenses: link (http://www.ilw.com/weekly/editorial/2005,1011-crs.pdf)

If I can find anything newer, I'll post it.

[ElNono]

Here's a 2007 article that mentions:

Only seven states – Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington – allow undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses.

link (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=234828)

[Wild Cobra]

Unless they can verify my green card, they have no way to know wether the temporary status is expired or not.
But it doesn't justify probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. Does it.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a 2007 article that mentions:

Only seven states – Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington – allow undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses.

link (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=234828)
Wake up....

This is 2010, not 2007.

[CosmicCowboy]

I first thought the AZ law was an attempt to deport illegals, and clearly a usurpation of congress's plenary power over immigration. But reading the law I'm not so sure. On the one hand, it still looks to usurp some federal authority regarding the determination of alien status. On the other hand it just hands suspects over to customs and immigration.

I'm curious as to what "reasonable suspicion means" especially when combined with the "determine the status" prong of that first paragraph. What's the standard for reasonable suspicion? It's clearly not probable cause. Is it the same as what federal authorities use. And, do states have the power to interpret standards that are basically set by federal agencies, e.g., the INS?

Ultimately, the law still fails, probably. I'd like to hear from the laws apologists as to how the determination of immigration status doesn't intrude upon congress's plenary power on immigration.

Simple. By the Arizona statute, the law requires them to refer to the feds and the actual determination of immigration status is done by the Feds. There is NO allowance for local authorities to make the determination of immigration status.

[ElNono]

But it doesn't justify probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. Does it.

Well, probable cause is a fairly well defined term, with case law behind it, and since we're talking about enforcement of running a red light, I don't think it's a factor at all, say, for justifying a search or seizure or an arrest.

Now, unless you can describe and explain what 'reasonable suspicion' is, that's a question without answer. Is my skin color a factor? My accent? My brown eyes?

[ElNono]

Wake up....

This is 2010, not 2007.

Do you have an updated list?

[vy65]

Simple. By the Arizona statute, the law requires them to refer to the feds and the actual determination of immigration status is done by the Feds. There is NO allowance for local authorities to make the determination of immigration status.

I dunno where you get that. The statute clearly says verification will be made by federal authorities, but the determination of "immigration statutus" seems to be made by state officials. The actor in the beginning of that sentence is "state or local." the first time federal authorities are mentioned is the verification sentence. Seems like it's the state to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have an updated list?
No, but after I say it changed a couple years ago, and Cosmic cowboy shows you a current link for Oregon, you post older information. Oregon would no longer be on that list, and possible other states too. The trend makes such information obsolete, fast.

[Wild Cobra]

I dunno where you get that. The statute clearly says verification will be made by federal authorities, but the determination of "immigration statutus" seems to be made by state officials. The actor in the beginning of that sentence is "state or local." the first time federal authorities are mentioned is the verification sentence. Seems like it's the state to me.
They have to go through the feds to determine that.

[ElNono]

No, but after I say it changed a couple years ago, and Cosmic cowboy shows you a current link for Oregon, you post older information. Oregon would no longer be on that list, and possible other states too. The trend makes such information obsolete, fast.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=495815

July 2, 2010

You can still get em in New Mexico if you hurry up. Utah and Washington will issue driving permits to illegal immigrants too...

[ElNono]

They have to go through the feds to determine that.

Right, but the one actually carrying the actual investigation is the state office or agency. It's pretty clear in the statute's text.

[CosmicCowboy]

Right, but the one actually carrying the actual investigation is the state office or agency. It's pretty clear in the statute's text.

Damn you are dense. The investigation/determination of immigrant status is done by the FEDS.

[rjv]

I'm curious as to what "reasonable suspicion means" especially when combined with the "determine the status" prong of that first paragraph. What's the standard for reasonable suspicion? It's clearly not probable cause. Is it the same as what federal authorities use.

another thing to take in consideration is whether or not the aspect of "exclusionary rule" would apply here as a deterrent. what kind of, if any rights, should be considered for the individuals that would be detained and/or arrested.

[jack sommerset]

No mention of racial profiling in the suit for Obama against Arizona. Strange considering thats what everyone is worried about that hates the federal law, errr state law. You Obama supporters need to jump ship. He is tearing our country apart for what, votes? He will lose this lawsuit too.

[CosmicCowboy]

another thing to take in consideration is whether or not the aspect of "exclusionary rule" would apply here as a deterrent. what kind of, if any rights, should be considered for the individuals that would be detained and/or arrested.

The individual ALWAYS has the right to challenge a legally inappropriate arrest.

They have the full rights and remedies of any legal citizen.

[ElNono]

Damn you are dense. The investigation/determination of immigrant status is done by the FEDS.

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 ... A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE ... TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

-----

The law forces (SHALL) state or local LE/Agency to attempt to determine the immigration status of the suspected alien/citizen. That right there is an investigation. The actual determination should be VERIFIED WITH (not BY) the federal government.

[CosmicCowboy]

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 ... A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE ... TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

-----

The law forces (SHALL) state or local LE/Agency to attempt to determine the immigration status of the suspected alien/citizen. That right there is an investigation. The actual determination should be VERIFIED WITH (not BY) the federal government.

So final YES/NO determination is made by the Feds.

Whats the fucking problem?

[rjv]

The individual ALWAYS has the right to challenge a legally inappropriate arrest.

They have the full rights and remedies of any legal citizen.

so if exclusionary rule would apply then the court would have to weigh the preponderance of whether the state of arizona was more at risk by holding the exclusionary rule to a rigid standard or whether the latter held precedence.

some interesting language stated in the terry ruling:



"Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate."

[CosmicCowboy]

Identification of Legal Residents is just too easy. There are many ways to prove it. Not being able to come up with one single form of documentation that they are a legal resident is reasonable cause for the locals to call the Feds. What is so difficult about that concept?

[rjv]

Identification of Legal Residents is just too easy. There are many ways to prove it. Not being able to come up with one single form of documentation that they are a legal resident is reasonable cause for the locals to call the Feds. What is so difficult about that concept?

but the assertion is that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it exceeds the state's own power to enforce immigration laws or rather that only the federal government has the right to enforce and write immigration law. prememption has been used to overturn anti-immigrant legislation in pennsylvania and farmers branch, tx. when they tried to bar undocumented immigrants from renting property in those towns.

i've already mentioned the 4th ammendment aspect of the law and even though you stated that these individuals would get the same rights as any other legal citizen would, i suspect that because arizona would wish to avoid the catch 22 of having to provide legal representation to those arrested (and spend taxpayers dollars in doing so) then they would more likely just funnel people directly to ICE, where people would not have the right to counsel.

and even though people have won cases in immigration court when they have been able to show that police pulled them over because of their race, which is an illegal practice, the criteria to prove this in immigration court is stricter and thus it would be harder for an individual to prove someone was racially profiled and their fourth amendment rights violated.

so exclusionary rule would not be available to them and the supreme court would have to consider whether it should.

[CosmicCowboy]

Holder is SOOO gonna lose this lawsuit.

[vy65]

so if exclusionary rule would apply then the court would have to weigh the preponderance of whether the state of arizona was more at risk by holding the exclusionary rule to a rigid standard or whether the latter held precedence.

some interesting language stated in the terry ruling:

You've got the law really jumbled up. Badly.

The exclusionary rule only applies to evidence seized in violation of the 4th amendment. It has no relevance as to whether or not an arrest is lawful. The standard as to whether an arrest is valid is whether the arresting officer had probable cause - ie that a fair probability exists - to blieve the suspect committed a crime. Preponderance of the evidence is a legal standard used to determine whether a particular evidentiary showing has been made and is inapplicable in criminal trials where the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard is used. Terry might have some relevance here, but you got that wrong too. A Terry stop is a brief detention or seizure of a suspect based on the officers belief that criminal activity has occurred. The whole point of Terry was to allow lesser evidence, as you put it, to be allowed and all the officer has to show is specific and articulable facts showing the presence of criminality. The fact that Terry is an exception to the need to get a warrant further proves this.

[rjv]

You've got the law really jumbled up. Badly.

The exclusionary rule only applies to evidence seized in violation of the 4th amendment. It has no relevance as to whether or not an arrest is lawful. The standard as to whether an arrest is valid is whether the arresting officer had probable cause - ie that a fair probability exists - to blieve the suspect committed a crime. Preponderance of the evidence is a legal standard used to determine whether a particular evidentiary showing has been made and is inapplicable in criminal trials where the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard is used. Terry might have some relevance here, but you got that wrong too. A Terry stop is a brief detention or seizure of a suspect based on the officers belief that criminal activity has occurred. The whole point of Terry was to allow lesser evidence, as you put it, to be allowed and all the officer has to show is specific and articulable facts showing the presence of criminality. The fact that Terry is an exception to the need to get a warrant further proves this.

what i was referring to was not regarding the application of evidence when prosecuting an illegal. the point was that the remarks made by the justices at that time made references to the aspect of exclusionary rule because they wondered whether or not a stringent application of it would benefit crime in the long run, or hinder the ability for law enforcement agencies to fight crime. but the primary reason that the justices mulled over this concern at all was because they knew that the primary victim of unreasonable searches were minorities:


The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime.

here their language essentially determined that there can be an effort to prevent racial profiling by the application of exclusionary rule but that even if such an application of that rule were executed to the tee that this would not in of itself stop the abuses common to the police.

this led them to the assertion that a reasonable search had to have more defined parameters and they concluded that "lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches" they then quoted beck v ohio and stated that:


...simple " 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police."

now lets juxtapose this aspect of exclusionary rule to the application of SB 1070 in arizona and you can see how the thinking behind terry v ohio can be used to argue against a "reasonable suspicion" and abuses that can arise from SB 1070 in that regard. this does not necessitate a significant leap of faith to see how racial profiling can occur here, especially in maricopa county (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/01/nation/la-na-sweeps-20100501 (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/01/nation/la-na-sweeps-20100501))



"...the fourth amendment as construed in Terry requires that the police officer have an articulable reasonable suspicion of crime to make the initial stop but the new arizona law adds an additional twist: if, after the initial stop, the officer develops a further reasonable suspicion that the detainee is an undocumented immigrant, the officer then must take steps to ascertain the detainee's immigration status.

Hunches are only as good as the base of experience on which they rest. A person who has had numerous opportunities to sort undocumented immigrants from persons lawfully present in the United States–such as a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent–might develop an intuitive ability or "sixth sense" for detecting the former. But even then we would legitimately worry that skin color and accent would often play a large part in triggering the ICE agent's hunch. Moreover, Arizona state and local officials who lack training and experience sorting out undocumented immigrants would likely lean even more heavily on such illicit factors.

To be sure, there will be some circumstances that objectively give rise to reasonable suspicion, even without considering race or ethnicity. Writing in the New York Times last week (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html), one of the law's authors gave the example of a police officer stopping a speeding minivan on "a known alien-smuggling corridor" and discovering twelve "passengers crammed inside," all lacking identification. Surely that would give rise to reasonable suspicion of immigration violations, he says. Indeed, that extreme case would satisfy the more demanding requirements of probable cause. But the Arizona law applies in numerous other contexts as well.

The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of whether the officials act on expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20100503.html

[CosmicCowboy]

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...

[George Gervin's Afro]

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...

and you are going to look like a complete dumbass when they don't..

[CosmicCowboy]

and you are going to look like a complete dumbass when they don't..

The ONLY way Arizona won't win is if Holder cherry picked an activist judge.

[Wild Cobra]

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...
I'm just waiting to see what the next totally stupid thing this administration does. Maybe libtards will actually gain a few IQ points.

[rjv]

keep in mind that the fed's suit is just one of many. this law is costing the taxpayers of arizona more and more money. and since there is no injunction at this time you also have the expenses that will mount regarding getting court appointed attorneys for those arrested as well as the expenses for holding those arrested in jails or other detention facilities.

[Wild Cobra]

keep in mind that the fed's suit is just one of many. this law is costing the taxpayers of arizona more and more money. and since there is no injunction at this time you also have the expenses that will mount regarding getting court appointed attorneys for those arrested as well as the expenses for holding those arrested in jails or other detention facilities.
Are you saying Arizona will go bankrupt either way?

[rjv]

Are you saying Arizona will go bankrupt either way?

no. seems more like a built in inference on your end.

[CosmicCowboy]

Any nut can sue about anything. Just look at Holder and Obama.

[Wild Cobra]

Any nut can sue about anything. Just look at Holder and Obama.
WTF...

You mean they have a nut between them?

[rjv]

i wonder if some of these posters realize that the bush administration was far more aggressive when it came to the employment of preemptive suits against the states.

[DarrinS]

Will the Fed sue Rhode Island, too? RI has already been enforcing a similar law on a regular basis.

[rjv]

Will the Fed sue Rhode Island, too? RI has already been enforcing a similar law on a regular basis.

because the governor of rhode island's mandate invoked section 287g of the immigration and nationality act, which is a federal law. there would be no preemption in this case.

[LnGrrrR]

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...

I think they're not pursuing it as you're stating it.

They're suing Arizona because the federal government sees this role as exclusive to the jurisdiction of the federal government. For instance, if Arizona decided to start printing its own money and the Fed tried to sue them, would you say that the case had no chance because the state was doing something the Federal government does?

The Federal government certainly does have sole jurisdiction over some areas; this case will define how much "dealing with immigration" falls under that.

I have no clue whether the case will win or not, but I don't think you're interpreting it correctly.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think they're not pursuing it as you're stating it.

They're suing Arizona because the federal government sees this role as exclusive to the jurisdiction of the federal government. For instance, if Arizona decided to start printing its own money and the Fed tried to sue them, would you say that the case had no chance because the state was doing something the Federal government does?

The Federal government certainly does have sole jurisdiction over some areas; this case will define how much "dealing with immigration" falls under that.

I have no clue whether the case will win or not, but I don't think you're interpreting it correctly.

I don't even agree that the state is enforcing immigration laws. They are simply turning all suspected illegal immigrants they run across in the course of their state law enforcement over to the feds for final determination of immigration status and enforcement of immigration laws.

[Trainwreck2100]

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...

the feds don't FORCE they strongarm, there's a difference

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't even agree that the state is enforcing immigration laws. They are simply turning all suspected illegal immigrants they run across in the course of their state law enforcement over to the feds for final determination of immigration status and enforcement of immigration laws.

so who is going to pay for them to be sent back?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't even agree that the state is enforcing immigration laws. They are simply turning all suspected illegal immigrants they run across in the course of their state law enforcement over to the feds for final determination of immigration status and enforcement of immigration laws.

*Shrug* You may be right; I'm not sure what is legally valid and what isn't.

[CosmicCowboy]

so who is going to pay for them to be sent back?

The feds. Congress wrote the immigration laws and it's Congress's job to appropriate adequate funds to enforce their laws.

[ChumpDumper]

The feds. Congress wrote the immigration laws and it's Congress's job to appropriate adequate funds to enforce their laws.How much is adequate?

[CosmicCowboy]

How much is adequate?

I have no idea. Definitely more than they are spending now. I have heard numbers like 275 billion thrown around as being "enough".

[George Gervin's Afro]

The feds. Congress wrote the immigration laws and it's Congress's job to appropriate adequate funds to enforce their laws.

so when they don't, then what? It becomes a waste of time and money for AZ to mess with it.. nice job AZ

you do realize congress won't appropriate the extra funds.. right?

[CosmicCowboy]

so when they don't, then what? It becomes a waste of time and money for AZ to mess with it.. nice job AZ

you do realize congress won't appropriate the extra funds.. right?

All Arizona is going to do is hand them over to the Feds to enforce Federal law. Of course, when the Feds tell the state they don't want them and can't afford to take them thats going to be pretty embarrassing. You realize don't you, that the majority of people in the United States (unlike this forum) are against illegal immigration?

[ChumpDumper]

I have no idea. Definitely more than they are spending now. I have heard numbers like 275 billion thrown around as being "enough".Damn. How much are illegals costing us right now?

$275 billion?

[ChumpDumper]

All Arizona is going to do is hand them over to the Feds to enforce Federal law.How much will that cost Arizona?

[rjv]

All Arizona is going to do is hand them over to the Feds to enforce Federal law. Of course, when the Feds tell the state they don't want them and can't afford to take them thats going to be pretty embarrassing. You realize don't you, that the majority of people in the United States (unlike this forum) are against illegal immigration?


really? because i have never really seen that at all. what i see is people opposed to SB 1070.

[George Gervin's Afro]

All Arizona is going to do is hand them over to the Feds to enforce Federal law. Of course, when the Feds tell the state they don't want them and can't afford to take them thats going to be pretty embarrassing. You realize don't you, that the majority of people in the United States (unlike this forum) are against illegal immigration?

I assume that the people who are against illegal immigration are also against kicking families out of the country overnight. Which is what you want to do. I think it is also fair to assume that majority of the people against illegal immigration support allowing these people to come and work.

[rjv]

I assume that the people who are against illegal immigration are also against kicking families out of the country overnight. Which is what you want to do. I think it is also fair to assume that majority of the people against illegal immigration support allowing these people to come and work.

even FOX news cited a poll that indicated 50% of those polled were in favor of amnesty while just above 43% were in favor of straight out deportation.

[CosmicCowboy]

I assume that the people who are against illegal immigration are also against kicking families out of the country overnight. Which is what you want to do. I think it is also fair to assume that majority of the people against illegal immigration support allowing these people to come and work.

I didn't say I was for kicking them out overnight. I'm for a very generous and easily acquired work visa program where they are registered and pay some taxes but don't get medicare, medicaid, etc. and don't vote. Kids born to them in the US are not US citizens. If you don't like that deal, then don't come over.

Of course, Obama's union buddies will never let THAT happen.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course, Obama's union buddies will never let THAT happen.How does illegal immigration benefit unions?

[CosmicCowboy]

How does illegal immigration benefit unions?

It doesn't. Neither does work visas.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I didn't say I was for kicking them out overnight. I'm for a very generous and easily acquired work visa program where they are registered and pay some taxes but don't get medicare, medicaid, etc. and don't vote. Kids born to them in the US are not US citizens. If you don't like that deal, then don't come over.

Of course, Obama's union buddies will never let THAT happen.

This is what Obama is trying to accomplish CC... why won't your side cooperate?

You have to treat people here whether they legal or not. The 14th amendment guarantees that babies born here are citiziens.

NO one that I know of is in support of granting non citizens the right to vote. In fact that is something your side made up to scare anyone who isn't paying attention.

[CosmicCowboy]

Full amnesty = full rights including voting. Obama wants to buy a 12 million person voting block he thinks the democrats will own.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Full amnesty = full rights including voting. Obama wants to buy a 12 million person voting block he thinks the democrats will own.

Ok, now you're making stuff up. You are as bad as the other dead enders here who make things up that they can't back up.

[ChumpDumper]

Full amnesty = full rights including voting. Obama wants to buy a 12 million person voting block he thinks the democrats will own.So your opposition is purely partisan.

[CosmicCowboy]

So your opposition is purely partisan.

No, my opposition is that I don't think illegal aliens should get full rights and benefits of citizenship.

[ChumpDumper]

No, my opposition is that I don't think illegal aliens should get full rights and benefits of citizenship.Ever?

[CosmicCowboy]

Ever?

Remember, we have ALREADY DONE amnesty once...it didn't solve the problem.

I don't have anything against legal immigration as long as it's strictly controlled and has some stringent age/literacy requirements...maybe nobody over 30 and they have to read/write basic english for starters...maybe with a 5 year probation period...get in trouble with the law and you are auto-out.

Certainly nobody over 40. They should HAVE to pay into the system for several decades before qualifying for Medicare and Social Security. Start giving 65 year old illegals amnesty and the US will turn into the Mexico retirement haven.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't say I was for kicking them out overnight. I'm for a very generous and easily acquired work visa program where they are registered and pay some taxes but don't get medicare, medicaid, etc. and don't vote. Kids born to them in the US are not US citizens. If you don't like that deal, then don't come over.

Of course, Obama's union buddies will never let THAT happen.

Define "easily acquired" please? Do you mean cheap? Less stringent requirements? Or that we should import a greater number of people per year?

[LnGrrrR]

Kids born to them in the US are not US citizens.


Some big problems with that.

1) That very scenario was brought up when they proposed the 14th Amendment, and it still passed. To change that requirement, you'd need another Amendment.

2) The fallout of such a law. How do you determine who is a US citizen and who is not? You'd need to not only keep your OWN birth record, but those of at least one parent as well. Yay for more recordkeeping! Not to mention having to grandfather a law like that, as it would be insane to think to delegitimize the citizenship of thousands with one law.

3) The legitimacy of said definition of citizenship. For over a century now, the way citizenship is defined has stood solid. Isn't it a bit short-sighted to think to change that definition? And not slightly, but to change the very core of it, the one key item that guarantees US citizenship? If you're born in America, you're an American. I feel America is a little less American-y if we change that statement to "If you're born in America, you're an American, assuming your parents are American too."

[LnGrrrR]

Remember, we have ALREADY DONE amnesty once...it didn't solve the problem.

I don't have anything against legal immigration as long as it's strictly controlled and has some stringent age/literacy requirements...maybe nobody over 30 and they have to read/write basic english for starters...maybe with a 5 year probation period...get in trouble with the law and you are auto-out.

Certainly nobody over 40. They should HAVE to pay into the system for several decades before qualifying for Medicare and Social Security. Start giving 65 year old illegals amnesty and the US will turn into the Mexico retirement haven.

I woudl think that limiting social security requirements of legal immigrants who immigrated later in life might be an easier sell than a hard cap on age.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, I'm saying maybe a 3 month visa to start with and you are given a WP#. Your employer uses that instead of a SS#. The employer is required to report that he has hired you and deduct, say..10% from your paycheck and remit it to the government. At the end of 3 months you have to check back in, prove you are working for an "on the books" employer and your visa gets extended for another year. Rinse and repeat.

[ElNono]

Yeah, I'm saying maybe a 3 month visa to start with and you are given a WP#. Your employer uses that instead of a SS#. The employer is required to report that he has hired you and deduct, say..10% from your paycheck and remit it to the government. At the end of 3 months you have to check back in, prove you are working for an "on the books" employer and your visa gets extended for another year. Rinse and repeat.

That's somewhat how it works now for temporary workers. The problem is when millions of people decide not to report back.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, I'm saying maybe a 3 month visa to start with and you are given a WP#. Your employer uses that instead of a SS#. The employer is required to report that he has hired you and deduct, say..10% from your paycheck and remit it to the government. At the end of 3 months you have to check back in, prove you are working for an "on the books" employer and your visa gets extended for another year. Rinse and repeat.

How much would you charge for the paperwork? What about security clearance/background checks? Would those still be required? (If so, who would pay for these? The employer?)

[LnGrrrR]

That's somewhat how it works now for temporary workers. The problem is when 11 million people don't report back.

As ElNono mentioned, you don't get a SS number with a work visa. You only get it when you get a green card, which allows you to live legally here. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, it has been two years since I worked the process to get my wife a green card/SS#.)

[ChumpDumper]

Certainly nobody over 40. They should HAVE to pay into the system for several decades before qualifying for Medicare and Social Security.That's how it already works for citizens.

[CosmicCowboy]

How much would you charge for the paperwork? What about security clearance/background checks? Would those still be required? (If so, who would pay for these? The employer?)

That should be part of the application process. If a 10% tax on earnings doesn't cover the cost of administrating the program raise the tax to 15% or whatever is necessary.

[ElNono]

As ElNono mentioned, you don't get a SS number with a work visa. You only get it when you get a green card, which allows you to live legally here. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, it has been two years since I worked the process to get my wife a green card/SS#.)

No, you can get a SS number. I actually got mine when I was still a temp worker. My SS card does read 'VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH INS AUTHORIZATION'. (Way back when I got it it was called INS instead of ICE)

[CosmicCowboy]

That's somewhat how it works now for temporary workers. The problem is when millions of people decide not to report back.

You have to combine the relaxed work visa standards with enforcement on employers. If you eliminate the "off the books" jobs, you eliminate the "off the book" workers.

All employers aren't bad, but the legal requirements to be an employer are pretty onerous. Make it something they can live with. They have to report the employee and hold out 10% (or whatever they are required) of salary and submit that to the government but forget about matching medicare and SS witholding and unemployment insurance. Maybe even require the employee to get a catastrophic insurance plan and withhold that out of the check. They are really cheap when you are young. If an employer still chooses to hire "off the books" fine the ever loving shit out of them.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, you can get a SS number. I actually got mine when I was still a temp worker. My SS card does read 'VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH INS AUTHORIZATION'. (Way back when I got it it was called INS instead of ICE)

OK, so you did everything legally.

Why do you support ILLEGAL immigration?

[ElNono]

You have to combine the relaxed work visa standards with enforcement on employers. If you eliminate the "off the books" jobs, you eliminate the "off the book" workers.

Whats the employer going to do if the employee doesn't show up anymore one day? Or what does the government needs to do different than what they do now if those people fail to show up?

[ElNono]

OK, so you did everything legally.

Yes


Why do you support ILLEGAL immigration?

I don't. At the same time, having been an integral part of the legal immigration system for over a decade, I understand that illegal immigration it's not a black or white issue. There's plenty of shades in the middle that need to be addressed.

[CosmicCowboy]

Whats the employer going to do if the employee doesn't show up anymore one day? Or what does the government needs to do different than what they do now if those people fail to show up?

It's not the employers problem if the guy doesn't show up.

Like I said the guy gets a WP#. He has to give that number to his next employer to change jobs. His next employer deducts the tax and turns it in under his WP#. The guy has to prove annually he is paying taxes to get his work permit renewed.

[jack sommerset]

Millions of illegals will be leaving on there own this time next year. USA has had enough. Those wanting amnesty for these criminals is a complete joke. Thanks to Arizona, dems/libs are actually talking about going after the businesses that support the law breakers. We are getting closer to a national ID.

What happened to Obama sending those 1200 nationals down there? Another lie. Shocking! I'm telling you that senator was right when he said Obama was holding the border hostage. Anyhoot, congress will change colors this november, atleast the house (no debate there) and the law breakers will be moving out. No thanks to Barry.

[CosmicCowboy]

Millions of illegals will be leaving on there own this time next year. USA has had enough. Those wanting amnesty for these criminals is a complete joke. Thanks to Arizona, dems/libs are actually talking about going after the businesses that support the law breakers. We are getting closer to a national ID.

What happened to Obama sending those 1200 nationals down there? Another lie. Shocking! I'm telling you that senator was right when he said Obama was holding the border hostage. Anyhoot, congress will change colors this november, atleast the house (no debate there) and the law breakers will be moving out. No thanks to Barry.

We have supposedly already lost a million+ with construction crashing.

[jack sommerset]

I hope no one takes this as racist. God forbid. All americans need to mow their own yard. That will send a few more million back home.

[CosmicCowboy]

I still mow my 2 1/2 acres with a push mower and I'm an old fuck.

[jacobdrj]

I think a big issue is selective enforcement. If the law isn't going to be enforced it shouldn't be there, not ignored. Why i it ok for someone to be in this country illegally, but it isn't ok for a legal, otherwise law abiding citizens get harassed to no end if they don't pay taxes? Obviously a bit rhetorical, but if a law won't be enforced it is an expense, a burden and a blemish on an already over-legislated government.
Want smaller government? Find better ways to deal with immigrants than making them illegal and wasting taxpayer dollars...

[ElNono]

It's not the employers problem if the guy doesn't show up.

Like I said the guy gets a WP#. He has to give that number to his next employer to change jobs. His next employer deducts the tax and turns it in under his WP#. The guy has to prove annually he is paying taxes to get his work permit renewed.

What you're describing is pretty much the current legal system in place. The problem is that employers don't give a shit about conformance. Most of those hiring illegal immigrants are fully aware of it. Actually proving that the guy hired the illegal is a lot harder than people think it is, which is what makes implementing a fine system really problematic.

[jack sommerset]

I did not mow my yard for 10 years but thanks to a conversation I had in here 15-16
months ago I started to mow my own yard. It only takes me 30 minutes, saves me 120 month and no illegals prowling around my property.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think a big issue is selective enforcement. If the law isn't going to be enforced it shouldn't be there, not ignored. Why i it ok for someone to be in this country illegally, but it isn't ok for a legal, otherwise law abiding citizens get harassed to no end if they don't pay taxes? Obviously a bit rhetorical, but if a law won't be enforced it is an expense, a burden and a blemish on an already over-legislated government.
Want smaller government? Find better ways to deal with immigrants than making them illegal and wasting taxpayer dollars...

It doesn't necessarily take bigger government. Make it really easy on employers to "go legitimate" and hire guest workers "on the books". Fine the crap out of the ones that still don't comply. I mean make it hurt and put the assholes out of business if necessary. The taxes raised and the fines on the non-compliant would more than pay for enforcement.

[CosmicCowboy]

What you're describing is pretty much the current legal system in place. The problem is that employers don't give a shit about conformance. Most of those hiring illegal immigrants are fully aware of it. Actually proving that the guy hired the illegal is a lot harder than people think it is, which is what makes implementing a fine system really problematic.

It's really simple. He shows his work permit ID. His ID has a number. The business owner with holds taxes and reports the income to the feds. If the number doesn't match the feds tell him.

[jacobdrj]

It doesn't necessarily take bigger government. Make it really easy on employers to "go legitimate" and hire guest workers "on the books". Fine the crap out of the ones that still don't comply. I mean make it hurt and put the assholes out of business if necessary. The taxes raised and the fines on the non-compliant would more than pay for enforcement.

Agreed.

[ElNono]

And BTW, the fact that I don't like the AZ law has nothing to do with 'supporting illegal immigration'. To me, it has to do with the erosion of individual rights and the thought that we're all basically illegal immigrants unless proven otherwise. I also refuse to open the door to legalizing terms such as 'reasonable suspicion' without being completely determined what is it's exact meaning.

[ChumpDumper]

What happened to Obama sending those 1200 nationals down there? Another lie. Shocking!They are being trained for deployment next month.

You didn't know that?

You were completely ignorant of that fact?

Shocking!

[ElNono]

It's really simple. He shows his work permit ID. His ID has a number. The business owner with holds taxes and reports the income to the feds. If the number doesn't match the feds tell him.

That's already in place. That doesn't mean there's no guys picking up 3 or 4 illegals from the nearest train station to do yard work for the day...

[ChumpDumper]

I did not mow my yard for 10 years but thanks to a conversation I had in here 15-16
months ago I started to mow my own yard. It only takes me 30 minutes, saves me 120 month and no illegals prowling around my property.You were employing illegal aliens for 10 years?

You should be in jail!

[CosmicCowboy]

Make it where the EMPLOYEE wants his boss to be "on the books". He has his work visa. He has to work on the books to keep it. To make it work you have to have the STICK if his VISA doesn't get renewed if he works off the books. Get caught in the US without a valid work visa or documentation? Your Mexican ass is on the next cattle truck to the border. They will gladly pay 10% to avoid the hassle and keep their visa.

[ElNono]

Make it where the EMPLOYEE wants his boss to be "on the books". He has his work visa. He has to work on the books to keep it. To make it work you have to have the STICK if his VISA doesn't get renewed if he works off the books. Get caught in the US without a valid work visa or documentation? Your Mexican ass is on the next cattle truck to the border. They will gladly pay 10% to avoid the hassle and keep their visa.

Ok... then he crosses over again. Then what?

[jack sommerset]

You were employing illegal aliens for 10 years?

You should be in jail!

That's what you got from that. Dumbass.

[LnGrrrR]

No, you can get a SS number. I actually got mine when I was still a temp worker. My SS card does read 'VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH INS AUTHORIZATION'. (Way back when I got it it was called INS instead of ICE)

Thanks for the correction ElNono. My wife's SS card has no such restrictions, IIRC.

[ElNono]

Thanks for the correction ElNono. My wife's SS card has no such restrictions, IIRC.

Yeah, that was 10+ years ago. I guess I should get an updated card now.

[LnGrrrR]

We have supposedly already lost a million+ with construction crashing.

:lol Biloxi got an entire Mexican community roughly 6 months after Katrina.

[LnGrrrR]

We are getting closer to a national ID.


Is that something you support?

[ChumpDumper]

That's what you got from that.What other conclusion should be drawn here?


Dumbass.Criminal.

[Oh, Gee!!]

local agencies (i.e. Arizona dipshits) are currently allowed to alert the federales (feds) of any undocumented miscreants they possess that are living and breathing in our airspace, but they have little to no authority to charge said immigrants with federal crimes (illegal entry). the conflict arises when AZ decides to arrest and charge suspected illegal aliens for being in the US illegally b/c those arrests and charges usually fall into the duties of the federal government carried out by federal agents (border patrol).

[CosmicCowboy]

local agencies (i.e. Arizona dipshits) are currently allowed to alert the federales (feds) of any undocumented miscreants they possess that are living and breathing in our airspace, but they have little to no authority to charge said immigrants with federal crimes (illegal entry). the conflict arises when AZ decides to arrest and charge suspected illegal aliens for being in the US illegally b/c those arrests and charges usually fall into the duties of the federal government carried out by federal agents (border patrol).

Read the bill. Arizona doesn't charge them for being illegal immigrants. They turn suspected illegal immigrants over to the Feds.

[Wild Cobra]

I still mow my 2 1/2 acres with a push mower and I'm an old fuck.
Well then...

You're a better man than me. that's quite a spread to use a push mower with.

[CavsSuperFan]

The U.S. government is saying that Arizona's immigration law is unconstitutional...Legally, there's only one entity that can determine who can come work in this country, and that's Wal-Mart...

[Wild Cobra]

The U.S. government is saying that Arizona's immigration law is unconstitutional...Legally, there's only one entity that can determine who can come work in this country, and that's Wal-Mart...
Really?

I though the US Postal Service hired more aliens than anyone else. That's why the 'spoof' about it is in the movie "Men in Black."