US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law

[maxiep]

I think he's quoting the Washington Post article, but there's a bit more to it than the supremacy argument:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_enforcement_lawsuit[/quote]

That's Ann Althouse, actually. I don't think she'd like being called a he. IIRC, she's a law professor at a school in Wisconsin. I'm guessing she may have a better handle on it than most of us.

The legal action represents a stern denunciation of the law, which the Justice Department declared will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations.

Actually the legal action represents an enforcement of the laws already on the books. See, the bitch about laws is that once they're made, they have to be enforced.

 

[maxiep]

You're wrong about this point and all the others you raised in your previous posts. You claim Mexico or these immigrants are invaders and are at war with us of sorts.

They are invaders. However, that doesn't mean they're covered under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention does not apply to a nation enforcing laws already on its books that don't result in the mass extermination of a people.

And beyond the Geneva Conventions banning forced migration, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines forced migration as a crime against humanity.

Where is the "forced migration"? They are not leaving their homes; we are asking them to return to them.

No matter how it's written, the AZ law effectively makes it a crime to have brown skin (appear to be mexican), and it targets those people for no reason that I can see beyond Nationalism. It encourages police to find the least of reasons to harass people, which is not what a free country is about.

Please. This argument is beneath you. People can be pulled over only if they're suspected of breaking the law. And then they're asked for identification. If I don't have my drivers' license, registration and proof of insurance, I'm violating the law no matter what my race or nationality.

If you want to see true racism, check out the practice of DWB (driving while black) on Lake Shore Drive.

You accuse these people of committing crimes, yet I see no grand juries indicting them as they're arrested. I see no trial of juries to find them guilty of these heinous crimes you accuse them of.

You use "most of them" a lot, which is a means to dehumanize and demonize them, as if to make it OK to give them lesser treatment than is required.

Their prescence here makes it de facto that they committed a crime: they crossed the border illegally. It's not "[dehuminizing]" or ["demonizing"] them to send them back home.

 

[maxiep]

I think he's quoting the Washington Post article, but there's a bit more to it than the supremacy argument:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_enforcement_lawsuit

The legal action represents a stern denunciation of the law, which the Justice Department declared will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations.

Here's a little bit more info on Ms. Althouse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Althouse

 

[Minstrel]

People can be pulled over only if they're suspected of breaking the law. And then they're asked for identification. If I don't have my drivers' license, registration and proof of insurance, I'm violating the law no matter what my race or nationality.

The law says nothing about only stopping drivers. The police can also detain pedestrians. Since when is it a violation of the law to be outside, not driving, without a driver's license or some other form of ID?

 

[maxiep]

The law says nothing about only stopping drivers. The police can also detain pedestrians. Since when is it a violation of the law to be outside, not driving, without a driver's license or some other form of ID?

They have to be suspected of doing something. Now, certainly you can stretch it to be suspected of being illegal, but you can do the same with almost any law.

The bottom line is that cops are busy enough. It's beyond unlikely they will start "hunting" for illegals when they've had the means at their disposal though the current laws to do the same thing.

You and I have both lived in Sweden. You know as well as I if Polisen decide to stop you and ask for your identification, you had better have your passport on you, otherwise you're being detained until your residency can be properly determined. They don't need to have cause, it can just be a slow day. If that's the requirement is PC Sweden where illegal immigration isn't much of an issue, why is it so outrageous if the police here are able to ask for identification when cause is actually required?

 

[Minstrel]

You and I have both lived in Sweden. You know as well as I if Polisen decide to stop you and ask for your identification, you had better have your passport on you, otherwise you're being detained until your residency can be properly determined. They don't need to have cause, it can just be a slow day. If that's the requirement is PC Sweden where illegal immigration isn't much of an issue, why is it so outrageous if the police here are able to ask for identification when cause is actually required?

I've never encountered that or seen that in Sweden. Denmark, certainly, but Denmark is basically the black sheep of Scandinavia in that respect and Denmark is extremely xenophobic...hardly PC at all. Of course, I never lived in Scania, which is the only part of Sweden which seems be somewhat akin to Denmark. The vast majority of Sweden isn't like that at all. They may ask for ID, like police here sometimes do, but they cannot detain you for not producing it. I was once wandering around the police house, waiting for a place to open...a cop asked me for my ID, because they were detaining some Hells Angels. I didn't have anything on me, but there wasn't anything they could do. They could, theoretically, have asked me for a contact who they could call to vouch for my identity but they couldn't have legally detained me.

And is that something you admire in Denmark? As a libertarian, it seems a bit surprising that you'd endorse the rights of the police to demand identification of anyone they find suspicious in an effort to ferret out illegal immigrants. The "hassle 100 legal residents so that 1 illegal immigrant doesn't go free" doesn't seem libertarian at all.

 

[maxiep]

I've never encountered that or seen that in Sweden. Denmark, certainly, but Denmark is basically the black sheep of Scandinavia in that respect and Denmark is extremely xenophobic...hardly PC at all. Of course, I never lived in Scania, which is the only part of Sweden which seems be somewhat akin to Denmark. The vast majority of Sweden isn't like that at all. They may ask for ID, like police here sometimes do, but they cannot detain you for not producing it. I was once wandering around the police house, waiting for a place to open...a cop asked me for my ID, because they were detaining some Hells Angels. I didn't have anything on me, but there wasn't anything they could do. They could, theoretically, have asked me for a contact who they could call to vouch for my identity but they couldn't have legally detained me.

And is that something you admire in Denmark? As a libertarian, it seems a bit surprising that you'd endorse the rights of the police to demand identification of anyone they find suspicious in an effort to ferret out illegal immigrants. The "hassle 100 legal residents so that 1 illegal immigrant doesn't go free" doesn't seem libertarian at all.

I was referring directly to Sweden, not to Denmark. It's their law. As a foreign national employed in Sweden, I was required to carry my passport (and specifically my passport) with me at all times. If I didn't have my passport, Policen were required to ascertain my identity by taking me to where my passport was or detain me until I could provide such proof. My business partner was out jogging, was pulled over for illegally crossing the street and I had to bring his passport down to the station, so I have first-hand knowledge what the law is and that it is enforced. Regardless, my point is that a society many would consider highly protective of individual rights has given its police much more discretion in terms of demanding identification than we in the US have.

And it was a nice attempt to twist my argument, but my point is that the Arizona law doesn't allow racial profiling; it requires that you have to either committed an infraction or suspected of committing one to be stopped by the police and asked to supply identification. And for the record, that's the law everywhere in the US. If I'm driving and am pulled over, do they allow me not to have ID? If I'm pointed at by others and accused of looting a store, do they take my word for it that I am who I say?

If you attempt to take this law to its logical extreme, to put it in its worst light as to what may happen, why shouldn't we do so for every law?

As for being a Libertarian, I certainly possess Libertarian beliefs, but not across the board. Don't try to simplify my beliefs, it will only result in me having to correct you.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually the legal action represents an enforcement of the laws already on the books. See, the bitch about laws is that once they're made, they have to be enforced.

You should turn yourself in the next time you jaywalk. That's the bitch about laws, eh?

And to the rest of your posts, forced mass migration is every bit a crime against humanity as mass extermination.

The AZ law gives the police the incentive to find the pickiest thing to search someone with brown skin, and you know it. It doesn't cover just driving, it covers just being in view of the cop (like on foot). The whole concept is Nationalistic - like maybe we should make them wear stars sewn on their clothing so we can more easily identify them. Get it?

Their homes are where they've been living for years. 13M people didn't just show up yesterday or last year.

The govt.'s case against AZ is one of many (like the ACLU is suing, too). They'll all get wrapped into one, and the conservative justices are all going to say, "what the fuck? we can't let something so unconstitutional on so many grounds stand!"

 

[bodyman5001]

And to the rest of your posts, forced mass migration is every bit a crime against humanity as mass extermination.

You know how it sounds stupid when someone equates a sporting event with a war or someone says someone they work with is worse than Hitler?

Think about that next time you write something like that. By the way, calling 911 and saying "my wife is at the bottom of the pool" is every bit a murder as holding her under on purpose.

The sad thing is that there is probably some truth to what I wrote about Captain Kirk the wife killer, unlike your mass migration baloney.

 

[maxiep]

You should turn yourself in the next time you jaywalk. That's the bitch about laws, eh?

I should, but I don't. I have received a ticket for jaywalking, however. Oh yeah, and they asked me for my ID, too.

And to the rest of your posts, forced mass migration is every bit a crime against humanity as mass extermination.

Tell that to my grandfather's family. Oh, yeah, you can't. They were shot in the head and dumped in a mass grave outside of Minsk because of their religion. So, was it a "crime against humanity" when my landlord didn't renew my lease and forced me to migrate somewhere else?

The AZ law gives the police the incentive to find the pickiest thing to search someone with brown skin, and you know it. It doesn't cover just driving, it covers just being in view of the cop (like on foot). The whole concept is Nationalistic - like maybe we should make them wear stars sewn on their clothing so we can more easily identify them. Get it?

Racial profiling is strictly prohibited. Again, you're from Chicagoland. You tell me about DWB. Most aren't speeding. THAT's racial profiling. The Arizona law has protections against that kind of thing. You actually have to commit a crime or be suspected of one. You wish to color it in the very worst way. Like I said to Minstrel, we can take any law and abuse it to violate the spirit of the law. To compare asking people for their identification with the Holocaust is not only insulting, but idiotic.

Their homes are where they've been living for years. 13M people didn't just show up yesterday or last year.

Citizenship and residency are two different things. The law is pretty clear on that point.

The govt.'s case against AZ is one of many (like the ACLU is suing, too). They'll all get wrapped into one, and the conservative justices are all going to say, "what the fuck? we can't let something so unconstitutional on so many grounds stand!"

Okey dokey. Or--and I'm just spitballing here--a judge will say the Federal Government doesn't have the right to decide which laws they'll enforce and which ones they'll let go. And especially when drugs and gangs are flowing over the border endangering the public.

 

[MARIS61]

The law says nothing about only stopping drivers. The police can also detain pedestrians. Since when is it a violation of the law to be outside, not driving, without a driver's license or some other form of ID?

I believe in Oregon you are required to carry ID at all times, technically speaking, regardless of your nationality.

 

[MARIS61]

The AZ law gives the police the incentive to find the pickiest thing to search someone with brown skin, and you know it.

No I don't.

Nowhere in the law is any "incentive" mentioned.

No pay raise for meeting an arrest quota.

No Comp time provided for idle harassment of dark-skinned people.

No Gold Star on your service record.

I guess what you're saying is Arizona police are all racist Klan members?

 

[barfo]

I believe in Oregon you are required to carry ID at all times, technically speaking, regardless of your nationality.

This lawyer says otherwise.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

This lawyer says otherwise.

barfo

Bicyclists are pedestrians? I don't think so.

Pedalstrians maybe.

 

[Denny Crane]

No I don't.

Nowhere in the law is any "incentive" mentioned.

No pay raise for meeting an arrest quota.

No Comp time provided for idle harassment of dark-skinned people.

No Gold Star on your service record.

I guess what you're saying is Arizona police are all racist Klan members?

I'm saying if they're told to go out and send the "illegals" back home, they'll do what it takes. And the only way to do it is racial profiling and all the negative baggage that goes along with it.

 

[maxiep]

I'm saying if they're told to go out and send the "illegals" back home, they'll do what it takes. And the only way to do it is racial profiling and all the negative baggage that goes along with it.

Two things. First, the Arizona law doesn't give them any additional power to do that than they had before. Second, they could undertake that mission with no new law in place.

So it seems your concern about this law doesn't have much to do with this law whatsoever.

 

[Denny Crane]

Two things. First, the Arizona law doesn't give them any additional power to do that than they had before. Second, they could undertake that mission with no new law in place.

So it seems your concern about this law doesn't have much to do with this law whatsoever.

My concern is Liberty, being a Libertarian.

If the law doesn't give them any additional power, what's the point in passing it? It's a wink and a nod to do things that aren't fitting with the constitution.

As I pointed out several times already, you can't pass a bill of attainder and you can't deprive persons of the same civil rights anyone else is fully entitled to.

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm saying if they're told to go out and send the "illegals" back home, they'll do what it takes.

Right. Just like they are told to ticket drivers going over the speed limit. Everybody going over the speed limit is pulled over and ticketed right?

Or is it usually the ones that are blatantly going too fast and being dangerous?

 

[Denny Crane]

Right. Just like they are told to ticket drivers going over the speed limit. Everybody going over the speed limit is pulled over and ticketed right?

Or is it usually the ones that are blatantly going too fast and being dangerous?

You get to an interesting point - promulgation. maxiep seems to think the laws MUST be enforced, which isn't true. Only the ones that are promulgated must be.

Anyhow, there's two motorcycle cops parked on the sidewalk across from where I work, in the mornings. They stand there with a radar gun and pull people over, two cars at a time, for going > 40 in the 35 zone there.

My assumption is the police chief told them to go out and hand out tickets.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

You get to an interesting point - promulgation. maxiep seems to think the laws MUST be enforced, which isn't true. Only the ones that are promulgated must be.

Anyhow, there's two motorcycle cops parked on the sidewalk across from where I work, in the mornings. They stand there with a radar gun and pull people over, two cars at a time, for going > 40 in the 35 zone there.

My assumption is the police chief told them to go out and hand out tickets.

Yes, some police officers are assigned quotas.

 

[maxiep]

Speeding isn't illegal immigration.

 

[barfo]

Speeding isn't illegal immigration.

It is if you do it across the border without the proper paperwork.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Speeding isn't illegal immigration.

36 MPH in a 35 MPH zone gets you pulled over if you have brown skin.

 

[maxiep]

36 MPH in a 35 MPH zone gets you pulled over if you have brown skin.

Sure, Denny. Every single cop in the country is a racist.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure, Denny. Every single cop in the country is a racist.

It doesn't take many to make life miserable for people.

And surely there never has been racial profiling by the cops anywhere, ever.

 

[maxiep]

It doesn't take many to make life miserable for people.

And surely there never has been racial profiling by the cops anywhere, ever.

Gee, then I guess with all these racist cops we should just abolish all laws.

 

[Denny Crane]

Gee, then I guess with all these racist cops we should just abolish all laws.

Racial profiling is quite prevalent, so maybe we should just abolish racial profiling and laws that encourage it.

 

[maxiep]

Racial profiling is quite prevalent, so maybe we should just abolish racial profiling and laws that encourage it.

Racial profiling is strictly prohibited in this law. Nice try, though.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Profiling and discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, and age are prohibited by several laws across the world - that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, though.

 

[maxiep]

Profiling and discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, and age are prohibited by several laws across the world - that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, though.

And it doesn't mean that any law where racial profiling could take place should be stricken.