What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

I never said I want open borders. I want laws that meet Constitutional standards and are legally enforceable.

The most interesting legal issue is if the state can make illegal immigration a state crime, which is what the law does. Or is the crime of illegal immigration solely a federal prerogative as identified in the Constitution as a power of Congress.

And whether it is controversial to you or not, and whether you or I disagree on the legal merits, it is controversial to many attorneys, law enforcement officials, local government officials and others.

That is why we have a federal judiciary. If the courts determine it is legal, I might not like it, but I will accept it.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

it is controversial to many attorneys, law enforcement officials, local government officials and others.

All of whom have a great deal at stake and not just financially.

Originally Posted by classicman

All of whom have a great deal at stake and not just financially.

All of them?

Many legal experts who have expressed concern about the law have only the Constitution in mind. Many local elected officials and police chiefs in AZ are concerned about liability exposure since there is no clear standard of what constitutes "reasonable cause" or "suspicious behavior."

You can ignore the legal issues and attempt to make it all about politics and money. As convenient as it might be to deflect the argument away from the legal questions, that in itself is acting politically.

I honestly dont understand what is so wrong with having the federal judiciary determine the constitutionality of the AZ law (or any law where there are controversial legal questions). Perhaps you can explain why that would be so bad.

As an aside:
While not pointing any fingers here, its funny how many conservatives are all gung ho about questioning the constitutionality of a federal law they dont like (health reform) but for some reason, have a problem with others questioning the constitutionality of a state law that those conservatives like.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You answered that yourself, federal and state.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You answered that yourself, federal and state.

How so?

The core issue, putting aside the 4th and 14th amendment issues, is whether a state can make a law that the Constitution says is solely the prerogative of Congress....and there is something called the Supremacy Clause as well which often comes into play when determining the constitutionality of state laws.

If illegal immigration can only be a federal crime, then it raises question about a state law that makes illegal immigration a state crime.

I am not suggestion that it applies in this case. I dont know, but some constitutional experts believe it does apply and I think it is a legitimate question. The federal judiciary should make that determination.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Just because the law says you can't racially profile doesn't mean it won't happen any more than laws against unethical behavior by our legislators work.

You know why the American government didn't put German immigrants into internment camps like they did for the Japanese immigrants during WWII? Because there were just too dang many of them. If you had walked down an urban street in the southwest recently, you would realize that if the police were using nothing but skin color to determine suspicion, they'd never finish the job.

If this law had been enacted in Ohio, then I'd say yes, there would absolutely be racial profiling going on. Down here, Hispanics are like 30% of the population. Too many to profile on any meaningful generalized level.

[lumberjim]

I'm wondering why some of you seem to WANT to be upset by this. And why it is the 'Liberals' that seem to have the biggest objections.

How is this a Liberal vs Conservative issue at all? is it just habit?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

And why it is the 'Liberals' that seem to have the biggest objections.

How is this a Liberal vs Conservative issue at all?

VOTES which equals power and control.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

I'm wondering why some of you seem to WANT to be upset by this. And why it is the 'Liberals' that seem to have the biggest objections.

How is this a Liberal vs Conservative issue at all? is it just habit?

Liberals fear the police state as conservatives fear the regulatory state, that is the habit part. Politically, this is just Republicans pandering to their base, once again tying to make the liberals look anti-American while at the same time getting the jump on the Democrat's up-coming Federal immigration legislation. The racist part is mostly to get liberals upset enough to vote, but there is a core group of racists in the Republican party who will be soothed by a States Rights push that will only impact brown people, if you ignore the budget blowing incarceration aspect of the thing.

How much more dangerous does this make the policeman's job? Traffic stops become high stakes situations.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Griff

The racist part is mostly to get liberals upset enough to vote, but there is a core group of racists in the Republican party who will be soothed by a States Rights push that will only impact brown people, if you ignore the budget blowing incarceration aspect of the thing.

Is it possibly, in your mind, for someone to want immigration law enforced and not be a racist?
Is is possible to believe that illegal immigration is a problem, moreso for some areas than others, and that legislating law enforcement tools to deal with it is an attempt at reducing the problem, and not simple pandering?

How much more dangerous does this make the policeman's job? Traffic stops become high stakes situations.

They already are, and not just in AZ.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by jinx

Is it possibly, in your mind, for someone to want immigration law enforced and not be a racist?

Yes.

Is is possible to believe that illegal immigration is a problem, moreso for some areas than others, and that legislating law enforcement tools to deal with it is an attempt at reducing the problem, and not simple pandering?

Yes, it is a regional problem, but this legislation looks to be mostly pandering. It is like the banking thing, the Democrats are not addressing the core problem by breaking up the too big to fail banks, but they are attempting to solve some of the problems.

They already are, and not just in AZ.

...which brings us back to the drug war and the Mexican economy, the real problems.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

...which brings us back to the drug war and the Mexican economy, the real problems.

I agree with Griff here. We don't actually have an immigration problem. Rejiggering our immigration rules and their enforcement will not answer to the trouble we're having.

The problem is in Mexico and I think it can only be solved there: Mexico does not have a middle class visible to the naked eye. To achieve a bootstrapping up from dismal poverty to the lower middle class, the Méxicanos have to travel al Norte. Some carry this all the way to Canada's cities and towns.

Which is likely to improve the quality of Mexican restaurants throughout the continent.

The historical source of Mexico's lack of a middle class and its opportunities is easy enough to see: unlike the US and Canada, Mexican Spanish immigration -- and it was at first exclusively so -- was not a flood of smallholders, each with his stake in the enterprise. It was a sparse settlement of primarily the aristocratic landowning class and their retainers, recreating the only economy they knew: the latifundian economy of Spanish landowners and Spanish peasants. Thus they created it and thus it remained. All over the place and for centuries.

So, the 1960s joke had it that Latin America resembles an LP record -- 33 1/3 revolutions per minute. The twentieth century was when it all came to a head, building on some brawling begun in the nineteenth. Every bit of it over resources, at bottom.

So, short of revolution and raping real estate away from people who used to have it, and rationing it out to people who used not to have it, what? Well, an organic, viral answer was to export labor. Population too. Guess who's importing.

[skysidhe]

Yes like over population. This video about the immigration problem, as far as over population goes, and sustainability was made in 1996. It is sure to piss some people off.

Watched it yesterday after following someones link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

[skysidhe]

As far as Arizona and Texas along with other boarder states it is a regional problem because of the drug wars. In my state the Hispanic population is 10%. When I was young these were mainly migrant farm workers but now there is established neighborhoods. People are hardworking and this area is pretty liberal but the lenient welcoming attitude would change if the drug cartels keep pushing their way in further into the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Why should we be different than any other country when protecting itself? Why does this have to be a race issue? Where are the rights of the people to live without fear?

[Griff]

My problem with it is that no matter what is done at the border, human intelligence will circumvent those "secure the border" measures if there is a strong economic or social incentive. As long as we foster a black market, we will have people isolated from the wider society who will clan up and remain outside the law. Does the law in Arizona make us more or less free? Does it make us more or less safe? I think it makes us less free and less safe to abandon an open culture.