SB 1070 ruling: Judge paves way for immigration-status checks

[brassmonkey]

A U.S District Court judge on Wednesday denied a request to impose a new injunction on a portion of Arizona's immigration law that requires law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people stopped during the investigation of other crimes.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton did, however, grant a preliminary injunction against a statute making it illegal to harbor individuals suspected of being in the country illegally.

"The governor is pleased with the decision," said gubernatorial spokesman Matthew Benson. "This paves the way for full implementation of SB 1070 as quickly as the district court lifts the injunction."

"What the court has said is that the heart of SB 1070 needs to take effect," he said. "And then the courts can later judge whether there are instances that can be proven of civil rights violations or racial profiling."

Last month, a coalition of civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups asked the court to enjoin a section of Arizona's immigration law that the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated in June after it had been frozen for nearly two years by an earlier injunction.

The high court ruled that Section 2B, which critics call the "show me your papers clause," did not automatically violate constitutional rights and was not necessarily pre-empted by federal immigration law. But the justices suggested that the matter could be reconsidered if evidence of violation surfaced after the law went into effect.

The advocacy groups, which include the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, filed a motion for a new injunction on July 17, claiming that public statements by Arizona law enforcement officials suggested that people would be detained longer than is constitutionally permitted while their immigration status was checked.

The advocates also raised a separate claim that SB 1070 was passed with intent to discriminate, in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They based the discrimination argument largely on e-mails they obtained from legislators, especially from former state Sen. Russell Pearce.

They asked that another section forbidding harboring illegal immigrant criminals be enjoined as well.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law in spring 2010. It was immediately challenged in lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and numerous civil-rights and advocacy groups, including the groups involved in the current motion for injunction.

Before the law took effect, Bolton enjoined Section 2B and three others in response to a motion in the Department of Justice case: one that required immigrants to carry "alien-registration papers;" one that allows for warrantless arrest if an officer thinks there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and one that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work.

The injunction was upheld in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and in June the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the injunction except for Section 2B.

The Department of Justice case was based on the concept that federal law pre-empts state law. The new motion for injunction fell under a different case filed by the advocacy groups, and it raises issues besides pre-emption.

full article...

[Just Alex]

[Rochard]

I fail to understand why this is even open to discussion. Any time I have contact with the local police the first thing they do is establish who I am - by checking my ID. If I am unable to verify who I say I am, handcuffs should be put around my wrists until I do so. The last time I had contact with the was police was when my wife set off the house alarm as she was leaving the house; I just happened to come home a few moments later not knowing the alarm had been set off. The cops wouldn't even discuss the weather with me until I produced ID. This is the way law enforcement works.

Any time police come into contact with a non us citizen, they should be required to produce proper ID. The only proper ID is a passport, being as a local DL from the UK or France or Mexico has no legal value in the US. Without a passport, they should get cuffs thrown on them until their ID is confirmed and then it is confirmed they are in the country legally.

If I visit France and I come into contact with the police, my California DL is worthless to them.

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I fail to understand why this is even open to discussion. Any time I have contact with the local police the first thing they do is establish who I am - by checking my ID. If I am unable to verify who I say I am, handcuffs should be put around my wrists until I do so. The last time I had contact with the was police was when my wife set off the house alarm as she was leaving the house; I just happened to come home a few moments later not knowing the alarm had been set off. The cops wouldn't even discuss the weather with me until I produced ID. This is the way law enforcement works.

Any time police come into contact with a non us citizen, they should be required to produce proper ID. The only proper ID is a passport, being as a local DL from the UK or France or Mexico has no legal value in the US. Without a passport, they should get cuffs thrown on them until their ID is confirmed and then it is confirmed they are in the country legally.

If I visit France and I come into contact with the police, my California DL is worthless to them.

Do you always carry passport with you? I don't.

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I fail to understand why this is even open to discussion. Any time I have contact with the local police the first thing they do is establish who I am - by checking my ID. If I am unable to verify who I say I am, handcuffs should be put around my wrists until I do so. The last time I had contact with the was police was when my wife set off the house alarm as she was leaving the house; I just happened to come home a few moments later not knowing the alarm had been set off. The cops wouldn't even discuss the weather with me until I produced ID. This is the way law enforcement works.

Any time police come into contact with a non us citizen, they should be required to produce proper ID. The only proper ID is a passport, being as a local DL from the UK or France or Mexico has no legal value in the US. Without a passport, they should get cuffs thrown on them until their ID is confirmed and then it is confirmed they are in the country legally.

If I visit France and I come into contact with the police, my California DL is worthless to them.

yep

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

yep

What yep dumb ass? They are talking about "where's your immigration papers" not just DL or Mexican passport.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Do you always carry passport with you? I don't.

It's 100% irrelevant as any police officer can instantly look up and confirm your identity by the info you provide.

And when you're in a foreign country you are required to have your passport with you. So again... a non issue.

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

It's 100% irrelevant as any police officer can instantly look up and confirm your identity by the info you provide.

And when you're in a foreign country you are required to have your passport with you. So again... a non issue.

Another clueless retard.


requires law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people

You can't check immigration status by simply running someone's ID. State of Illinois dos not require immigration papers to obtain drivers license, so illegals can get their DL there with out any problem. So if I drive into AZ with my IL license I have to bring my passport as well? Not! But thats because Im black, not Mexican.

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

It's 100% irrelevant as any police officer can instantly look up and confirm your identity by the info you provide.

And when you're in a foreign country you are required to have your passport with you. So again... a non issue.

there's going to be a caravan tonight!

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

there's going to be a caravan tonight!

Urban Watermelon Festival in town or EBT sponsored rap concert?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Another clueless retard.


requires law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people

You can't check immigration status by simply running someone's ID. State of Illinois dos not require immigration papers to obtain drivers license, so illegals can get their DL there with out any problem. So if I drive into AZ with my IL license I have to bring my passport as well? Not! But thats because Im black, not Mexican.

Uhmm.. yeah. I'm clueless. A law is going to be passed requiring police to do something that can't be done. Thats exactly how it works. Thats exactly how bills get passed. No one stops to think about the details except a dipshit on "go fuck yourself" adult webmaster forum. You should run for office.

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

No one stops to think about the details except a dipshit on "go fuck yourself" adult webmaster forum. You should run for office.

Exactly. Same clueless dipshit was arguing about Soviets in Afghanistan and had his ass handed with actual quotes from US generals about preparations before invasion. And thats just one highlight of his dipshit career on GFY Now eat a dick, dipshit!

[BIGTYMER]

The Fed revoked most Arizona counties/agencies from even being able to run immigration checks just a couple months ago.

[BIGTYMER]

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/...ts-in-arizona/

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by BIGTYMER

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/...ts-in-arizona/

Paul Markham's lackey didn't get the memo and brassmonkey forgot to re-post it here.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Exactly.

I continually underestimate the GFY brain trust.

Obviously, you're a fucking genius, but let me help you out with some bullet points which you certainly know, i'm sure.

U.S. federal law requires all aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government, and to have registration documents in their possession at all times.

The Arizona Act additionally made it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents, required that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest", or during a "lawful contact" not specific to any activity when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.

It's all very simple. If you are not a citizen, you are required by law to have documents on you at all times. That is true in every country on the fucking planet besides Somalia.

If you are a citizen or resident, then checking your identity only takes seconds for a police officer.

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

If you are a citizen or resident, then checking your identity only takes seconds for a police officer.

ARE YOU FUCKING BRAIN DEAD OR WHAT?
Its two different agencies police and immigration. Police has to contact INS to check detainee's status, dumb ass. identity != immigration status. Thats why illegals can use someone's social security number and don't flag shit. Because one is labor department and the other is DHS jurisdiction. Getting it numbnut?

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security today rescinded agreements that allowed seven Arizona law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, further hindering the state?s ability to enforce SB1070 following the U.S. Supreme Court?s landmark ruling today.

Several Arizona police agencies also have 287(g) agreements for their jails, which allow agencies to check the immigration status of anyone booked into jail. Those agreements will remain in place, according to DHS.

In addition to the revocation of the 287(g) agreements, DHS announced that its agents would not respond to the scene of calls from Arizona law enforcement officers who want the agency to take custody of illegal immigrants, unless those suspects met the criteria it established for its enforcement priorities. DHS said its prioritizes illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals, deportees who have returned to the United States, and people who have recently crossed the border illegally.

[brassmonkey]

the racial profiling wonder if it will be an issue.

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

the racial profiling wonder if it will be an issue.

No shit Sherlock.

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by Just Alex

No shit Sherlock.

how so? if someone makes a traffic violation are they suppose to over look it? because the fear of being a racist?

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

how so? if someone makes a traffic violation are they suppose to over look it? because the fear of being a racist?

Overlook what? Someone's immigration status because of the car they drive or accent they have? Sounds familiar Tyrone?
Its not police's business to ask for immigration papers. That what INS is for.

[Freaky_Akula]

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Overlook what? Someone's immigration status because of the car they drive or accent they have? Sounds familiar Tyrone?
Its not police's business to ask for immigration papers. That what INS is for.

They more you talk, the bigger the idiot you make yourself become.

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by Freaky_Akula

that's a funny comparison!

[Quentin]

The real problem with SB 1070 is the lack of specific statutory definitions for some of the key terms found in the text of the statute.

I give the law about three months of active enforcement before it will be applied in a way that results in a flurry of lawsuits that will ultimately cost our state millions more dollars to defend (just what our broke ass state needs, right?).

My prediction is that the eventual case will not have anything to do with racial profiling, and whole lot to do with the statutory definitions of "reasonable suspicion" and "state agency."

Something that gets glossed over a lot in the reporting about this law is that the word "agency" has a very broad meaning, which makes it very possible that we'll see employees of the state who have nothing at all to do with law enforcement being sued for failing to adhere to the revised section 11-1051.

But hey... it's all good. We loves us some unnecessary, expensive, time-consuming civil litigation here in Arizona, after all. ;-)

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by Quentin

The real problem with SB 1070 is the lack of specific statutory definitions for some of the key terms found in the text of the statute.

I give the law about three months of active enforcement before it will be applied in a way that results in a flurry of lawsuits that will ultimately cost our state millions more dollars to defend (just what our broke ass state needs, right?).

My prediction is that the eventual case will not have anything to do with racial profiling, and whole lot to do with the statutory definitions of "reasonable suspicion" and "state agency."

Something that gets glossed over a lot in the reporting about this law is that the word "agency" has a very broad meaning, which makes it very possible that we'll see employees of the state who have nothing at all to do with law enforcement being sued for failing to adhere to the revised section 11-1051.

But hey... it's all good. We loves us some unnecessary, expensive, time-consuming civil litigation here in Arizona, after all. ;-)

hmm there's still the employer-sanctions law no problems there.

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by KillerK

They more you talk, the bigger the idiot you make yourself become.

Eat a dick