Why doesn't it surprise me

[byu71]

I also don't this is going to solve the immigration issue.
Do you like the bill?

I honestly don't know. I listen to people talk about it and the people I generally side with don't seem to think it is a terrible bill. People like Cris Matthews, whom I never agree with think it is terrible. I know that is a bad way to decide, but I haven't read it enough that if I say too much I could be out on a limb and get sawed off.

I was actually for Bush's proposal. I am actually Ok with anmnesty, if there was some way to assure me in the future the borders would be shut down. I am not for open immigration.

One reason I am not. I think most of the people who immigrate here from South America will end up voing for democrats. It is philosophical, not a condemnation. I think most people who come in are easily converted to hating rich people and having them pay for everything.

[KillerDog]

Because "racist" is a good code word for "you are a dirty rotten scumbag and your only goal in life is to do harm to the poor and downtrodden."

The federal law for the most part is ignored. It isn't because all these people who ignore it are such wonderful people, they just don't have the same problems arise that folks in border states have and it doesn't affect them.

That isn't true. It isn't the same enforcement mechanism. They have been given too big of a butterfly net and they are going to violate citizens rights without any great return. This is a 4th Amendment issue. The erosion of the 4th Amendment is already pretty bad due to the so called "War on Drugs" speeding it up with immigration crap is going to make it valuless in no time.

[mUUser]

Do you like the bill?

It's not a question of whether one likes it or not, but whether Arizona has a legal right to create state laws that, in large part, mirror federal law, then enforce that law.

I don't necessarily like it or dislike it, but I do empathize with the legal residents in Arizona that wish to curtail the flow of illegal immigrants into its state. Will it help? Who knows, it's too soon to determine. But, Arizona should have the freedom within the law to try different techniques.

I'm sure it will be challenged in court and decided. If it's stricken down, they'll likely try something else. They seem fairly desperate.

[il Padrino Ute]

I honestly don't know. I listen to people talk about it and the people I generally side with don't seem to think it is a terrible bill. People like Cris Matthews, whom I never agree with think it is terrible. I know that is a bad way to decide, but I haven't read it enough that if I say too much I could be out on a limb and get sawed off.

I was actually for Bush's proposal. I am actually Ok with anmnesty, if there was some way to assure me in the future the borders would be shut down. I am not for open immigration.

One reason I am not. I think most of the people who immigrate here from South America will end up voing for democrats. It is philosophical, not a condemnation. I think most people who come in are easily converted to hating rich people and having them pay for everything.

Amnesty has been tried before and it doesn't work. It just tells illegals that it's okay to ignore the law and if you ride it out long enough, you'll get a pass.

I think what should be done is rather than just deport the illegals, we should hit them with a substantial fine - whatever "substantial" is determined to be - and give them the opportunity to get things in order legally. If that means to streamline the immigration process, so be it. If they decide they don't want to pay the fine, then boot 'em. They would have at least been given the chance to stay and made their decision that they don't want to abide by the law.

[UtahDan]

My problem with the law is that I believe it is a statutory expansion of the Terry Stop. It requires an officer who has made "lawful contact" with a person to gain proof of legal immigration status or citizenship upon "reasonable suspicion." If I recall correctly, this mirrors the language in Terry v. Ohio (or is it Ohio v. Terry, I can never remember) but not the rationale behind a case that I believe was wrongly decided in the first place but at least had a good reason for the 4th Amendment violation (safety of the stopping officer). In Terry, the officer was allowed to do a pat down of someone who they had stopped on reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed. The point of the pat down was to make sure the officer wouldn't get shot by a concealed weapon. Any fruits of that lawful pat down could be used as evidence. Subsequent case law has made it clear any reason by the stopping officer is "reasonable suspicion." Thus, the Arizona law will allow officers to stop people for any reason (which they could already do under Terry) as long as they could testify in Court that whatever made them suspicious was, in their experience, reasonable. The important part for me is that now, after stopping a person for nothing, the officer is now required to "determine immigration status" which allows him to treat anyone without identification as an illegal. He/she is put in jail until immigration status can be proven. The result is an expansion in the power of the police to jail you for no purpose as citizens are not required to carry identification of any type.

(Sorry for the poorly drafted response but I don't have either the time of the inclination to draft better on a web site.)

What is informing your belief that a person can be stopped for "nothing?" Your recollection of Terry is roughly correct though Terry has been expanded to allow limited, temporary detention of a person where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed. The stop can only last long enough to confirm or dispel the suspicioun. Any law that allowed a stop for no reason would go afoul of the 4th amendment on its face. But I don't think that is what we are talking about here.

But let's assume that the officer lawfully has stopped someone and that he does have a reasonable, articulable suspicion based on his experience that some crime, including the trespass crime under that section, has been committed. Remember that that is an objective standard, it cannot be based on his subjective belief or a hunch. He is now required to try to determine immigration status IF there is ALSO a reasonable, articulable suspicion based on objective fact that the person is an alien.

This is where SoCal's question comes in, which is what objective facts could be relied upon to reach the conclusion that the suspicion exists. It isn't hard to think of facts like that is it? How about a fake ID coupled with no ability to speak English? How about the fact that you are found with 35 other people in the cargo area of a rental truck with its headlights off in a border area headed north?

I think the idea that just having brown skin is going to get you stopped is a bit hysterical. That would never ever hold up. I think a closer, more interesting question is whether merely not being able to speak English would be enough. My guess is that at the end of the day probably not. But again, there has to be some articulable fact that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person was illegal. The courts will flesh that out very quickly in AZ. I think it practice this is not going to be very problematic. I think in most cases where there is an arrest under this statute they are going to be very sure they have some good facts in possession, particularly in light of all this scrutiny.

What I seem to be hearing, at bottom, from most people (not saying you) is that they don't want our immigration laws enforced. I really think the idea that brown skinned people are going to start getting randomly stopped and detained is not supported by the text of that statute. I think that a lot of sharp people (even sharp lawyers) are getting a little off on this because they don't understand Terry stops and temporary detentions as they exist under current law. I don't view this as being an extension, at all, of what current law already permits. It is just a new subject area.

Straighten me out if you think I missed your point.

[Portland Ute]

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

What does this have to do with the current discussion?

I'm going to assume here that you are using this to point out that the U.S. welcomes immigrants.

If my assumption is correct, what are you aiming at? Open immigration?

Do you favor open immigration? Do you think we ought to abandon our borders? Do you think it is unreasonable to have a measured approach to whom we let pass through our borders?

[byu71]

I'm boycotting everything Arizona until it's rescinded (including unpainted furniture).

Interesting and I really believe folks have the right to boycott. However, Saturday a couple of my buds asked me to join in and I agreed to. We are sending another friend down there a thousand a month to buy stuff and send it up to us. We pledged to do this until San Francisco stops their boycott.

I also told my daughter the dinner I was going to buy her this summer on the SF wharf is being rescinded. If they go to Phoenix instead, the dinner offer is back on.

[ewth8tr]

Amnesty has been tried before and it doesn't work. It just tells illegals that it's okay to ignore the law and if you ride it out long enough, you'll get a pass.

I think what should be done is rather than just deport the illegals, we should hit them with a substantial fine - whatever "substantial" is determined to be - and give them the opportunity to get things in order legally. If that means to streamline the immigration process, so be it. If they decide they don't want to pay the fine, then boot 'em. They would have at least been given the chance to stay and made their decision that they don't want to abide by the law.

Just curious, when was it tried? Also, what you are suggesting sounds similar to a proposal from Senators Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey Graham in which they would have to pay fines and back taxes. I'd be in favor of something like that as long as they are given a reasonable amount of time to pay off the fine as many of them are struggling to get by already.

[UtahDan]

Just curious, when was it tried? Also, what you are suggesting sounds similar to a proposal from Senators Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey Graham in which they would have to pay fines and back taxes. I'd be in favor of something like that as long as they are given a reasonable amount of time to pay off the fine as many of them are struggling to get by already.

Amnesty was given to a huge number of people during the Reagan administration. I think it hard to find the right balance. We certainly need to incorporate, legally, those who are here. But if there is no penalty involved, there will be no incentive to use legal processes in the future. We have seen how reluctant people are to enforce immigration laws, many folks simply favor not having them. We have to create a system where there is an incentive to use the legal processes. Current there is nearly zero.

[RobinFinderson]

What would be so terrible about an open border with unlimited work visas for everyone who applies, followed by green cards for everyone who meets some standards, followed by a clear path to citizenship for anyone who wants to make the US their home? It seems like the proper libertarian/free-markets thing to do.

[DU Ute]

What would be so terrible about an open border with unlimited work visas for everyone who applies, followed by green cards for everyone who meets some standards, followed by a clear path to citizenship for anyone who wants to make the US their home? It seems like the proper libertarian/free-markets thing to do.

Unions would love this.

[UtahDan]

What would be so terrible about an open border with unlimited work visas for everyone who applies, followed by green cards for everyone who meets some standards, followed by a clear path to citizenship for anyone who wants to make the US their home? It seems like the proper libertarian/free-markets thing to do.

Because it would massively tax already overburdened infrastructure. I understand the argument that you would get a whole new class of taxpayers, but keep in mind that half of the people in this country don't pay income taxes already. Not many migrant workers would either. If you could make it pay for itself, I would be receptive to it. I don't see how that could be done, not in a way that would pay for the education (and in most cases health care) of how ever many children would be born here as a result.

We need to allow needed workers to exist here legally without becoming the social services arm of the Mexican government.

[byu71]

Unions would love this.

Yes they would. Let's have the open border, but to absorb the work force coming in we would have to have all states be right to work states.

[RobinFinderson]

Because it would massively tax already overburdened infrastructure. I understand the argument that you would get a whole new class of taxpayers, but keep in mind that half of the people in this country don't pay income taxes already. Not many migrant workers would either. If you could make it pay for itself, I would be receptive to it. I don't see how that could be done, not in a way that would pay for the education (and in most cases health care) of how ever many children would be born here as a result.

We need to allow needed workers to exist here legally without becoming the social services arm of the Mexican government.

I find it interesting that conservatives would oppose open borders in order to protect the solvency of big government social programs. If the newcomers would make these programs insolvent, that seems like a pretty direct route to shrinking the size of government.

[Indy Coug]

If the newcomers would make these programs insolvent, that seems like a pretty direct route to shrinking the size of government.

LOL. Yeah, that's the direction they would go to resolve that little problem.