Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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...

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Temporary residency is still legal.

---

Only if it didn't expire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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/drive...legal_presence

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Wrong

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/drive...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Wrong

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/drive...legal_presence

---

Must be recent. Here's a 2005 Congressional report on states that don't verify status for issuing driver licenses: link

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Wake up....

This is 2010, not 2007.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Wake up....

This is 2010, not 2007.

---

Do you have an updated list?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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/detail...ntentId=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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.