Arizona's new border protection law

Jun 20, 2010
2
0
#1
In the news online regarding Arizona's new border protection law, does the ambiguity in section 1070 call for possible racial profiling?
 
May 24, 2010
138
0
#2
Please post a link for this or quote the section. I know it is only around 10 pages long, but, if the Attorney General for the US can't bother reading it, but can still talk out against it, I don't have the time for reading it either.
 
Apr 18, 2010
105
0
#3
Please post a link for this or quote the section. I know it is only around 10 pages long, but, if the Attorney General for the US can't bother reading it, but can still talk out against it, I don't have the time for reading it either.
I think this will end with a constitutional law challenge to the US Supreme Court. The Court will say Arizona's laws are unconstitutional. Like the southern states in the US when the Court said black have a right to attend racially integrated public schools back in the 1960's, there will be a lot of angry people who don't like the ruling but will ultimately accept it.

Those are my predictions.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#4
I think this will end with a constitutional law challenge to the US Supreme Court. The Court will say Arizona's laws are unconstitutional. Like the southern states in the US when the Court said black have a right to attend racially integrated public schools back in the 1960's, there will be a lot of angry people who don't like the ruling but will ultimately accept it.

Those are my predictions.


The schools are still segregated, at least here in Florida. Several SDs have been sued for noncompliance but it seems to be all for not.
 
May 24, 2010
138
0
#5
I think this will end with a constitutional law challenge to the US Supreme Court. The Court will say Arizona's laws are unconstitutional. Like the southern states in the US when the Court said black have a right to attend racially integrated public schools back in the 1960's, there will be a lot of angry people who don't like the ruling but will ultimately accept it.

Those are my predictions.
I am sure it will go to the Supreme Court but I am not sure that it will have any effect. Just because the SC says something is unconstitutional doesn't necessarily mandate the state repeal something. States don't follow Fed laws quite frequently.
 
Jun 28, 2010
4
0
#6
Obviously, the concerns about illegal immigration are valid. But this issue is also poisoned by elements of racism and hate. If we cannot isolate the legitimate concerns from the ulterior motives behind the current immigration debate, I'm afraid this issue will continue to be divisive, and we're not going to reach a compromise acceptable to both sides.
 
Jan 29, 2010
172
26
Miami
#7
Obviously, the concerns about illegal immigration are valid. But this issue is also poisoned by elements of racism and hate. If we cannot isolate the legitimate concerns from the ulterior motives behind the current immigration debate, I'm afraid this issue will continue to be divisive, and we're not going to reach a compromise acceptable to both sides.
I'm not as much in agreement that it is racially oriented. The law itself is based on a reasonable premise; the border violence there has been a major problem and little has been done on the national level to try and mitigate it. The literature of the law with respect to whom can be stopped and why however is vague and leaves open the possibility of racial profiles on the part of individual policemen which is my main concern now. I think it needs to be fleshed out to get rid of that potential loop hole
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#8
I'm not as much in agreement that it is racially oriented. The law itself is based on a reasonable premise; the border violence there has been a major problem and little has been done on the national level to try and mitigate it. The literature of the law with respect to whom can be stopped and why however is vague and leaves open the possibility of racial profiles on the part of individual policemen which is my main concern now. I think it needs to be fleshed out to get rid of that potential loop hole
It was. You have to have a reason to suspect them, not having any kind of documentation during a traffic stop for example.
 
Jun 18, 2010
157
0
#9
I think proponents of this in Arizona should emphasis that these steps would not be needed if the federal government would be more competent in patrolling the border.

Everybody calls everything racists in America the accusation is so wildly thrown around it loses credibility. The majority of the issue, and the most well known is Mexicans, simply due to geography, not race.

 
May 24, 2010
138
0
#10
I wish California would take a leaf out of Arizona's law book and start ramping it up. I'd rather pay out the ass for vegetables and fruits instead of pay out the ass for health care.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#12
The schools are still segregated, at least here in Florida. Several SDs have been sued for noncompliance but it seems to be all for not.
Not de jure though. The fact is that people of similar ethnicity tend to group themselves together in neighborhoods. That means you'll have schools reflecting the ethnic makeup of the area the school services.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#13
I think this will end with a constitutional law challenge to the US Supreme Court. The Court will say Arizona's laws are unconstitutional. Like the southern states in the US when the Court said black have a right to attend racially integrated public schools back in the 1960's, there will be a lot of angry people who don't like the ruling but will ultimately accept it.

Those are my predictions.
Why would SCOTUS strike the law?

It requires police who have made a lawful detention ascertain the citizenship status of the detainee. They cannot detain some one to determine citizenship status.

When you get pulled over you are asked for a DL. That's not some jackbooted thuggery. Its sop. Foreign nationals are required by law to carry documentation on them at all times by federal law. So, asking some one - be they citizen or foreign national for ID is hardly abusive.

Also, most of the assertions are that the law might lead to racial profiling. Well, any law can be abused by an agent of the law bent on abusing it. That's a person violating poilicy not enforcing it. When has a law ever been struck down because of a potential for abuse? When has a law been struck down because an agent of the law acted beyond the scope of the law? We discipline officers who go to far - we don't toss out the law.