Lack of Leadersip in the Immigration Debate

The Arizona law is actually narrower, since a cop has to have a non-immigration reason for firswt stopping a person, like an apparent traffic violation.

The general approach of the Federal law seerms entirely resonable, since it is the job of immigaration enforcers to enforce the immigration laws and, if one sees what looks like a probably violation, he or she ought to act. Indeed, producing papers to show legal presence is seomthing we all have to do when we travel in foreign countries. In Italy, for example, a foreign tourist needs to produce his passport every time he exchanges currency or checks into a hotel.

1 posted on 05/12/2010 5:27:45 AM PDT by libstripper

A little-known federal law has escaped the headlines.

My understanding is that this is the heart of what's going on in AZ. The feds won't enforce their law, so the state basically passed a very similar law so that state agents could handle enforcement.

The headlines all treated this as the second coming of the Third Reich. Oh. Wait a minute. Looks like there's a "little-known federal law has escaped the headlines" that people might want to be aware of.

2 posted on 05/12/2010 5:32:45 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy

Dopey Americans who feel that this law is an infringment on ALL hispanics rights haven’t bothered to fact check. Too busy watching Oprah and eating Big Macs. The fact is that 42 states (including AZ) enforce a “must have ID” law when driving. Another fact is ANYBODY that gets pulled over, mexican, white, black gets a run down through a data base to check for warrants etc. If your name isn’t even in the data base, you’re likely to be an illegal alien. Simple.

3 posted on 05/12/2010 5:33:09 AM PDT by albie

The Leftist propaganda machine is at full capacity. They want those Dem votes badly.

This is the F’n umpteenth article I’ve seen that repeats faulty information on Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Bill.

The Bill has been amended and Brewer signed the new version which deletes “lawful contact” with lawful stop, detainment or jail”.

You’re absolutely correct, the Az law is much more narrower than the Federal Law.

4 posted on 05/12/2010 5:47:20 AM PDT by rbmillerjr ("Palinphobia has, for 20 months, been the one constant among liberals in America.")

The article goes on to say, “Our elected leaders in Washington should add more than a sound-byte to the debate over the Arizona law. They should take decisive action to repeal the federal policy that generally permits an individual to be interrogated upon reasonable suspicion that he or she is an illegal alien.”

I have a better idea. How about enforcing the laws they have sworn an oath to uphold! Every legal immigrant to this country should be thoroughly ticked off.

5 posted on 05/12/2010 5:47:45 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")

To: spectre; truthkeeper; processing please hold; antceecee; navymom1; jaredt112; Edgerunner; ...

6 posted on 05/12/2010 5:50:47 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)

Wonder if this panic stricken Progressive at CBS has the same fear when he realizes the same sort of power exists with every single state conservation office in regard to checking for poaching.

7 posted on 05/12/2010 5:53:13 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is eventually you run our of other peoples money. Lady Thatcher)

They should take decisive action to repeal the federal policy that generally permits an individual to be interrogated upon reasonable suspicion that he or she is an illegal alien.

What a bogus complaint. Anyone engaged in any amount of commerce and travel will be asked for identification several times per year. And most driver's licenses and other offical IDs (unless forgeries) attest to a person's legal presence in the US, either as a citizen or legal resident. - (Forged documents put the user in another category of criminal and those crimes should be punished when discovered.)

All of this bogus whining about civil rights violations is nothing but a smoke screen used by people who want NO immigration law enforcement.

8 posted on 05/12/2010 6:07:01 AM PDT by Will88

I’ve traveled across the U.S. several times, usually crashing at a Motel 6 each night on the road. Guess what??? You can’t check into a Motel 6 without showing a government provided photographic ID. I usually use my handgun carry permit.

9 posted on 05/12/2010 6:37:46 AM PDT by libstripper

(Congratulations to the Flagstaff Tea Party for this)

Arizona's Gov. Brewer signed SB1070 into law in April of 2010. Combined with HB2162 (which amends SB1070), the new law will:

Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an "illegal alien" (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)

Allow police to detain people where there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they're illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what "reasonable suspicion" might entail)

Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction

Reality vs. Myth: SB1070

Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.

Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)

Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.

Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official "may not consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien's immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in "solely" considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.

Myth No. 3: "Reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.

Reality: "Reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures"). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of "reasonable suspicion:"

A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver's licence card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.

The SB1070 provision in question reads:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency 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."

Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.

Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.

Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.

The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment). Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725

10 posted on 05/12/2010 6:39:53 AM PDT by yoe (The "N" word stands for NO...as in NO MORE VOTES FOR IRRESPONSIBLE CONGRESSMEN OR SENATORS.)

I usually use my handgun carry permit.

Lol, and I hope there aren't any states where illegal aliens can obtain those, but wouldn't be shocked if there are a few.

11 posted on 05/12/2010 6:46:10 AM PDT by Will88

To: Will88; libstripper

>>I usually use my handgun carry permit.
>
>Lol, and I hope there aren’t any states where illegal aliens can obtain those, but wouldn’t be shocked if there are a few.

LOL - That’s funny.
Lately I’ve been using my conceal carry permit/card to buy alcohol. {It’s a state-issued photo ID with the DOB listed.}

12 posted on 05/12/2010 7:18:05 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Arizona, Minorities, and Republicans

By Jack Kerwick, on May 12th, 2010

Crocodile tears over the enforcement of immigration law, calculated as they are to win Hispanic votes, in the end will win votes from no one.

Republican establishmentarians, of both the political and punditry classes, are in a panic over the national controversy swirling around the immigration bill that the governor of Arizona recently signed into law, a bill that demands of the state’s police officers that they inquire into the immigration status of those of whom they have a “reasonable suspicion” are in the United States illegally.

For this, the Left has derided the law as “draconian,” “racist,” and “fascist.” Unfortunately, but, sadly, all too predictably, comparable criticisms have been made against it by some on the Right, even if those criticisms usually lack both the explicitness and intensity of their leftist counterparts.

Before looking at the arguments that have characteristically been made against this law, arguments ranging from weak to almost laughable, we must first retrieve the law from the hysteria by which it has already been engulfed so as to discern its true character: Arizona’s immigration law authorizes the state’s police forces to do nothing more than enforce federal immigration law. Furthermore, unlike federal immigration officers, law enforcement agents in Arizona are constrained by the twin criteria of “lawful contact” and “reasonable suspicion.”

So, if Arizona’s law is “racist,” “fascist,” and “draconian,” then it must be the case that America’s immigration law is at least as barbaric.

Yet, interestingly, the very same people who warn of an impending “police state” in Arizona, denigrate its law as “irresponsible” and “misguided,” and express “concerns” over the “abuses” to which it will allegedly, inevitably lead — people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, talk radio personalities Michael Medved and Dennis Praeger, Texas governor Rick Perry and aspiring Florida senator Marco Rubio — have not, as far as I can determine, so much as remotely hinted at having similar sentiments regarding our federal immigration law.

Marco Rubio is acquiring quite the reputation of being a genuinely “conservative” Republican, but his latest comments on Arizona’s law raise the question of whether this reputation is deserved. While reserving all of his scorn for what he (rightly) judges to be the federal government’s dereliction of duty, Rubio nonetheless declared that the sole “solution” to the havoc that our porous southern border has visited upon states like Arizona lies in the federal government’s finally discharging its obligation to secure the country against those who would enter it illegally....

Excerpt

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/05/12/arizona-minorities-and-republicans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+intellectualconservative+%28Intellectual+Conservative+Politics+and+Philosophy%29

13 posted on 05/12/2010 8:51:49 AM PDT by KeyLargo

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

14 posted on 05/12/2010 11:07:15 AM PDT by HiJinx (~ Illegal is a Crime, it is not a Race ~)

How anyone can consider an openborders/pro-amnesty politician or politicians who support them, as being “conservative” is beyond me.

15 posted on 05/12/2010 7:19:34 PM PDT by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794