What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

[classicman]

Sue Schwartz says she's been called a racist so many times she doesn't mind the label anymore. If wanting immigrants to enter the country legally, like her great-grandparents from Mexico, and obey the laws of the land makes her racist, then so be it, she says firmly.

"I'm getting to the point I wear it with pride," says Schwartz, a lifelong Arizonan who has warily watched the growth of the illegal immigrant population in the state over the course of her life.

Of equal concern to her friend, Martha Payan, is how she says illegal immigrants "fleece" government coffers by collecting welfare on multiple children, or vanish without a trace after an arrest or a hospital visit.

Anna Gaines, a Mexican-born U.S. citizen, says she took up the fight against illegal immigration after becoming disillusioned by the attitudes of immigrant families that she witnessed as a teacher in the Paradise Valley School District in Paradise, Arizona.

"Many of these families were having one child after another just to earn a paycheck from the U.S. government and they didn't care about their children's education," says Gaines, the controversial founder of American Citizens United, a grass-roots organization known for its extreme views on immigration enforcement. "They didn't want to contribute, just take."

Link

[Pie]

The plural of anecdote is not statistics.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Statistics lie.

[classicman]

So do people.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Statistics lie.

To roughly quote Mark Twain:

"There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics."

[xoxoxoBruce]

By the way, they rewrote the law, for Jinx.

[jinx]

Yeah, hopefully its clear enough that even CNN and redux's lawyer can understand it now.

Originally Posted by jinx

Yeah, hopefully its clear enough that even CNN and redux's lawyer can understand it now.

I dont know that it clarifies much.

The underlying crime is now a new state crime of being in the country w/o documentation.

The Constitutional questions remain.

Can a state enact a law that makes being in the country illegally a state crime OR is that solely a federal government responsibility and thus, can only be a federal crime.

As Merc pointed out, the Constitutional specifically identifies "standard rules of naturalization" as a power of Congress. It is not one of those powers that is ceded to the states.

And then you have the 4th amendment search and seizure issue and the 14th amendment due process and equal protection issues....all of which depends on the interpretation of "reasonable cause" or "suspicion" which is still undefined.

I dont know the answers, but I think it needs to be answered by the federal courts.

[jinx]

Yeah, ok, whatever. I don't think it's that complicated.

Originally Posted by jinx

Yeah, ok, whatever. I don't think it's that complicated.

When it is that controversial in terms of its legal merits, why not let the federal courts decide?

[jinx]

What is so controversial about the legal merits?
Illegal aliens can be legally approached "contacted" by law enforcement for the all same reasons as everyone else. If they want special treatment in that regard they can go fuck themselves repeatedly.
There's nothing controversial on it's face, the controversy comes in because some people disagree with immigration law period.
So take your fight there. You want open borders? Tell us why.

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.