U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-30-2010, 10:17 PM
Status: "Make America the Great Joke Again" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Denver
9,059 posts, read 15,467,286 times
Reputation: 5288

Advertisements

Caved under pressure?

Quote:
The original bill stated that race could not be used "solely" as a determining factor in whether a person stopped for another violation could be suspected as being an illegal alien. The changes removed the "solely" clause and stated that race could not be used at all.
Arizona Changes Immigration Law SB1070 : Diggers Realm

Quote:
"These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling," Brewer said in a statement after the signing. "These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona."
Arizona governor signs changes into immigration law - CNN.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2010, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Lake Norman, North Carolina
1,213 posts, read 1,397,570 times
Reputation: 392
Well, it it's true that Arizona changed it's law then the radical left communist/marxist/socialist amnesty democrats apparently have won. The courts have that racial profiling can be used to identify suspects, as long as the racial profiling is not the sole criteria, i.e. in a description a red headed, blue eyed, white bank robber was identified. So LE can racially profile and look for red headed, blue eyed white SUSPECTS. Get real. The vast majority of illegals are hispanic with the vast majority of illegal hispanics being mexicans. You have to racially profile to catch these illegal mexicans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2010, 01:11 PM
 
Location: TX
1,098 posts, read 1,540,125 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50 View Post
Caved under pressure?
More like caved under the apparent need to use language that even an illiterate could understand. Specifically the 2nd item listed below but also the 1st one. The 3rd item may actually increase the scope of instances where the law is in play (rock on!) - it at least focuses the line better. Prior to the revised language I would not have assumed local civil ordinances were included. I was just thinking traffic and criminal matters, but that's just me. Now it sounds like if there's a domestic disturbance or a party that's a little too loud and the cops are called out - fair game. Either way, definitely not a 'win' for the opponents of the law. Who knows, now if people still keep on complaining about the law maybe the next revision will be even broader in scope - LOL (Like the scene in the Breakfast Club where Judd Nelson's character keeps getting more days of detention - "you just got another! ... and another!")

- - - - - - -
juiciest parts of the revisions:

The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law. (HB 2162, 11-1051, B - strike word "solely")

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police. (HB 2162, 11-1051, B - strike word "contact" insert words "stop, detention or arrest")

Another change specifies that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status. (HB 2162, 11-1051, B - insert the words "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state")

Shakira provision? (not exactly sure about this one - maybe it was for the grammar police on CD forums?) (HB 2162, 11-1051, B - strike word "who" and insert word "and" to read ... the person is an alien AND is unlawfully present in the United States)

- - - - - - -

lawful contact = a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law = lawful contact = a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law = lawful contact = a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law = lawful contact = a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law = lawful contact = a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law = lawful contact = a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law = lawful contact = a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law = lawful contact = a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law = lawful contact

but whatever it takes I guess.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Link to full text of new bill:
Format Document


Last edited by tyanger; 05-01-2010 at 02:22 PM.. Reason: Link to text of Arizona HB 2162
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2010, 06:51 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,066 posts, read 30,599,526 times
Reputation: 12813



In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”





In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”





Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”





In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”





In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.





In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.





In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."





In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a


lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."





in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.





In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top