Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

[Cloud]

I am neither an illegal alien, nor do I profit from them. Your brush is too broad.

[jinx]

Sorry Cloud, I didn't really think you were arguing against the law, just questioning/considering the arguments brought up by others. My mistake.

What is your argument against it? Or, what is your argument for unregulated immigration, whichever.

[Cloud]

I think I've made the points I care to about the AZ law issue in the neimroller thread. In the immediate sense, I'm not really as concerned about illegal immigration as I am with the impact of the violence across the border.

Not trying to cop out, just don't like to argue about stuff like this.

Originally Posted by jinx

....The AZ law will make it more difficult for illegal aliens to exist in AZ. Period. People that don't like that (ie. illegal aliens and those that profit from them) have come up with countless arguments against the law, all based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding or ignorance of the law, or hyperbole. This crap is more of the same.

Hey, I think its great that you, like classic, know what is in the hearts and minds of all of those constitutional experts, local elected officials and police chiefs who have expressed what many believe are legitimate concerns about the law.

The Cellar mind s?

[Cloud]

This is what I would like to see to try to solve the violence and related problems:

1) a generous immigration and naturalization policy which demonstrates compassion for the humans involved (meaning the US policy, but Mexico and other countries, too)

2) but also tighter controls on abuse of our resources by undocumented people

3) decriminalization of personal use of marijuana

4) while still maintaining a strong stance against organized drug crime and street drugs

5) a reduction in hysterical and bigoted ranting by pundits and political grandstanding over the issues

6) for the Mexican people to get their shit together and make their own country a decent place to live

naive? well . . . yeah. but I prefer hopeful!

[Pie]

rAmen.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

There are some issues that are not that ambiguous based on overwhelming Supreme Court precedents, including guaranteed rights to non-citizens.

But, ultimately, the Court will decide.

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO, its highly questionable that this is constitutional.

Strong Supreme Court precedent in support of Arizona immigration law

On Monday, the ACLU announced a lawsuit challenging the Arizona illegal immigration law on the basis of the “prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments.”

The ACLU, however, might have a difficult time making that case. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muehler v. Mena that questioning someone regarding their immigration status is not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights - provided that person is already lawfully detained.

In the wake of a drive-by shooting, Officer Muehler and other members of local law enforcement handcuffed and questioned Iris Mena in connection to the shooting. They did so while executing a search warrant for a safe house which she and members of West Side Locos gang would gather at, most of whom were illegal immigrants. Small wonder, then, that they asked if she was in the country illegally.

Muehler v Mena establishes that “officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.”

Even though this was a gang-related case, “no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required.” If that’s true in California, it’s true in Arizona. This is a strong precedent, with six justices from that unanimous decision remaining on the bench.

Certainly, Arizona law enforcement must take care not to be heavy handed, but the choice between heavy-handed local police action and wide open borders was forced upon the states by past administrations and congresses which punted on illegal immigration rather than do the hard work of governing.

Link
Since I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, I'm not sure what this means, but it seems to counter your opinion.

From your opinion piece:

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muehler v. Mena that questioning someone regarding their immigration status is not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights - provided that person is already lawfully detained.

...provided that person is already lawfully detained.

That is the difference between the Court's decision in Muehler v. Mena and the AZ law....and IMO, a significant difference.

Given that difference, I certainly dont think it is a "a strong precedent" as the columnists suggests.

But just like you and Gehrke, I'm no constitutional expert either, but that is why I think it is important for the law to go through a formal legal review.

Added:
And even taking illegal immigrants out the picture, under the AZ law, a citizen or legal resident, not being lawfully detained for questioning in connection to any other crime, can be asked by the cops to prove their citizenship or immigration status if the cop thinks the citizen/resident looks "suspicious of being an illegal immigrant" (whatever that means)...and those citizens or legal residents are far more likely to be Hispanic than Anglo.

[Cloud]

I'm glad we have a constitutional scholar leading our country, then

Originally Posted by Cloud

good thing we have a constitutional scholar leading our country, isn't it?

It is a better thing we have a system that provides for separation of powers and checks and balances.

[Cloud]

and a country which actually runs on the rule of law, unlike Mexico

Originally Posted by Cloud

and a country which actually runs on the rule of law, unlike Mexico

As Churchill once said...."It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

When we accept controversial laws or actions of the government (federal or state) without question, even those that may have popular support, we start down that slippery slope.

[SamIam]

I have a friend who is a Zuni Indian who got caught up in a sweep by la migra. Now there's some irony for you.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

When we accept controversial laws or actions of the government (federal or state) without question, even those that may have popular support, we start down that slippery slope.

UT...I honestly dont understand why some dont feel a need to ensure that controversial laws can pass a constitutional test.

And when a law can adversely impact one race over another...not just illegals, but citizens and legal residents...yes, I think it is controversial.