Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 26, 2010 11:07:32 GMT -5
Arizona is home to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Let's just say I have a lot less faith in Arizona police departments' ability to follow the law than you do. Do we really want to play this game whilst Marion Berry sits on the D.C. City Council? I'm sorry, does Marion Barry (you could at least get his name right) have the power to arrest me at will, intimidate elected officials, or run DC as a police state? Because otherwise, this is just a giant non-sequitur.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 26, 2010 11:43:19 GMT -5
Do we really want to play this game whilst Marion Berry sits on the D.C. City Council? I'm sorry, does Marion Barry (you could at least get his name right) have the power to arrest me at will, intimidate elected officials, or run DC as a police state? Because otherwise, this is just a giant non-sequitur. No, but he probably thinks he does.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 26, 2010 12:58:40 GMT -5
Do we really want to play this game whilst Marion Berry sits on the D.C. City Council? I'm sorry, does Marion Barry (you could at least get his name right) have the power to arrest me at will, intimidate elected officials, or run DC as a police state? Because otherwise, this is just a giant non-sequitur. Sorry about the misspelling. My point is that your broad opinion of Arizona law enforcement is based on one of its fifteen counties having elected a loon for a sheriff. By your logic, I should assume all the members of the D.C. city council are egomaniacal former crack users. ON EDIT: Any substantive comments on the statute itself, or are you and The Ambassador just going to play the smear game as usual?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 26, 2010 15:26:45 GMT -5
Austin - I think it is very difficult to divorce legislative process from result here, which is the gist of my comment. You think some of those legislators would not want Obama stopped as part of the new immigration law at the airport? If so, I have a beautiful piece of real estate for sale in Sedona.
Further, some of the comments of Arizonan politicians suggest an acceptance of nonsense, such as the "this will stop them from intentionally causing car wrecks" analysis. To what extent this kind of nonsense is prevalent, I don't know, but it matters when evaluating how well-crafted the law was and our confidence in same.
We simply have no basis right now to figure out what the effect of the statute will be as enforced (the gravamen of most attacks). We have our hopes and so forth (or our fears). In the meanwhile, our only guide is the hopes of the legislators, and those do not strike me as encouraging for what is otherwise a worthy endeavor to figure out the immigration problem.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 26, 2010 15:27:55 GMT -5
I think there are some good things in that law, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find that particular section very troubling. It will almost certainly lead to abuses, even if the understanding of the statute is closer to Austin's analysis than it is to "East Germany for brown people." Codifying that being in the country illeglly is a state crime? No problem. Going after employers/businesses that hire illegals? About time. But there is the conundrum. If being an illegal is a crime, then law enforcement has to have some sort of authority to investigate that. So how do you do that without starting down a slippery slope to "Achtung!! Papers, bitte!" I would've preferred something closer to what I think Virginia does, which is that if someone is arrested for a crime, police are required to investigate their residency status. Why that is not allowed in certain places, like San Francisco, defies logic and reason. I do have an honest question for the Bandos and Ambassadors though. What is your ideal solution to the problem of illegal immigration? Do you consider it a problem? Do you think US border security is OK as is, or do you think we need to strengthen that? To be honest, I've never really been able to get a grasp of what the average liberal thinks about this issue, because every time it comes up, the talking heads and extreme wings drown everyone out, either the Keith Olbermanns of the world crying "RACIST!!!" or the Ann Coulters of the world talking about how all liberals want is to destroy the country by letting it be overrun by those who don't speak English. Personally, I'm a little tired of being called a racist because I would like those who live here to be here legally, and because I would like to stop or slow the influx of illegal aliens entering the county and staying for as long as they want. I can assure you I would feel the same way if we had a major problem of huge numbers of caucasian Quebecers or Ottawans swimming across Lake Champlain into NY and Vermont every year. (Maybe more so, damn French-speaking snobs! )
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,781
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 26, 2010 15:38:51 GMT -5
I think there's more illegal Irish and Asians in San Francisco than hispanics. I have no proof, just personal experience.
California has an odd dynamic to the illegal issue. With so much of the nation's produce, wine, nuts, etc., picked here, and done so by those of questionable nationality, there would be a significant change in food prices and agriculture profitability. Which means a lot of the central valley conservatives rely on illegal labor. I'm not saying that's right, but it is a migrant workforce that much of our economy relies on, and before doing anything drastic, it should be thought about.
Add in that the vast majority of home owners in Southern California have hired an illegal for yardwork or housework -- these are jobs citizens never want to do or charge outrageously for -- and the true majority of people are little like the vocal minority.
I'll be honest, I've never really seen obviously illegal-driven violence or vandalism, at least not in any quantity.
I have no problem with those picked up for real crimes being checked for illegality, but I'd limit it. And frankly, as a person that lives in Oakland, I'd prefer the police not spend any time on it, because, you know, there's bigger fish to fry.
It's not a hot button issue for me for two reasons:
1) I'd be much more in favor if it was accompanied by better and easier ways to allow for legal immigration and
2) The war on drugs is an apt analogy. This isn't a winnable fight from a law enforcement perspective. You need to find a better way.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 26, 2010 15:49:16 GMT -5
My approach would be to identify the interest that we're trying to protect. If it is highway safety in AZ, make a statute pertaining to the safety of highways. If it is something else, make it something else.
This statute, however, seems intended to criminalizing entry into this country, which I do not agree with as a matter of national identity or purpose. So, there is bound to be a fundamental difference between how I attack the problem and how others do. The overinclusive nature of the statute (as copied) is going to have a tough time when it gets challenged, particularly in light of some of the legislative discussions I've heard, which indeed raise questions about the motives of the legislators (why birther legislation had to be passed in he same brushstroke as this bill is curious).
As to Boz's point as to criminalizing illegality, you may have a legal problem with that too (for better or for worse) depending on how the statute is written. (Depending on AZ law, the supposed "illegal" may have to be shown to have knowledge of his/her illegality beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a difficult thing in practice to prove (whether you agree with it or not)). Accepting the practicality issue, that is why I would argue for a series of ad hoc rules that have the practical effect that a more general rule seeks but cannot otherwise deliver for the reasons above.
Boz - nobody called you a racist in this thread or elsewhere, so let's leave that for another day. You are not a victim. ;D
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 26, 2010 16:00:51 GMT -5
Ignorance of the law is a viable defense now?
I don't know if I buy that part of argument, that it will have to be proven that the person had knowledge of their illegal status.
Are there other laws to which we apply that type of standard? I was not aware of any (but of course I am not a lawyer).
And don't worry. I may get tired of it, but people calling me names has never made me feel like a victim. Usually it makes me feel like I'm doing or thinking something correctly. (But just to be clear, I wasn't saying anyone on the board has said that to me specifically, just having to hear the aforementioned pundits and columnists applying it to me generally because of my opinions.)
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 26, 2010 16:07:53 GMT -5
Ignorance does not provide an excuse, generally, to be clear, but the defense would generally be one of mistake of law or mistake of fact to negate the state of mind that would be required. That is a secondary issue and should not be thrown in at first blush. See below as to the state of mind issue. The issue/mess comes in if the statute is written so as to punish someone for being in the country "illegally" and whether mens rea attaches to the illegality there - matter of state law. An argument can be made that one's illegal status distinguishes between one's illegality and another's legal conduct, so you would need some kind of mens rea attaching to the illegal status. Nonetheless, you could have a constitutional problem in any event if the law punishes based on a person's status rather than an act specifically. States vary as to how this all comes out, but it may be in play depending on how a statute is written. My only point is that it may not work depending on where you are, and that the mess attending to punishing based on illegal status is one that most would wisely avoid as a matter of law where better options may be available. This may be somewhat illustrative (even if you don't agree with the result as a matter of conscience) - volokh.com/2010/04/26/acquittal-in-i-didnt-know-i-was-a-felon-felon-in-possession-case/
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 26, 2010 16:40:00 GMT -5
Austin - I think it is very difficult to divorce legislative process from result here, which is the gist of my comment. You think some of those legislators would not want Obama stopped as part of the new immigration law at the airport? If so, I have a beautiful piece of real estate for sale in Sedona. I don't get this. Do you mean oceanfront real estate in Sedona? What would be suspect about you owning a beautiful piece of real estate in Sedona? In determining whether this statute passes constitutional muster, courts will look at the text of the statute itself first. If necessary, they'll look at the legislature's statement of intent. If you think that courts will look at "legislative process," by which you actually mean "off-the-cuff comments to the press," in determining the constitutionality of this statute, I've got a bridge you might like to buy.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 26, 2010 16:42:59 GMT -5
My point about process was not as to constitutionality. It was only as to how we might guess it is to be enforced or will be enforced.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 26, 2010 16:53:01 GMT -5
My point about process was not as to constitutionality. It was only as to how we might guess it is to be enforced or will be enforced. Sorry, guess I misread this, which seemed pretty clear to me: The overinclusive nature of the statute (as copied) is going to have a tough time when it gets challenged, particularly in light of some of the legislative discussions I've heard, which indeed raise questions about the motives of the legislators (why birther legislation had to be passed in he same brushstroke as this bill is curious). Could you be more specific about which language in the statute is going to "have a tough time when it gets challenged?"
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 26, 2010 17:00:05 GMT -5
The quoted passage, I hope, relates to legislative intent, so I think we're on the same page there that intent could be an issue. I think there will be trouble with the language you copied upthread - reasonable suspicion. The argument, off the cuff, would go something like this -- statute touches on race/insular minority --> strict scrutiny --> need compelling government interest + law narrowly tailored to achieve same. I have questions about both prongs here. I am not sure what the interest is (keep illegals out? If so, we're punishing the illegals who are already here). Craft the statute to nail them at the border somehow. Maybe there is another interest - public safety/police power. I can buy that if that is what they were trying to achieve. The question then becomes one of whether the law is narrowly tailored. I don't think I can buy that, and, at the very least, the litigation about this is going to be fierce for these and other reasons. Here is an early challenge from an employer advocacy group: www.azeir.org/pdf/Scan_2007_07_13_14_37_18_217.pdf
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 26, 2010 18:57:15 GMT -5
Ambassador, your continual use of the term, birthers, bothers me as it's a pejorative term intended to put down those who believe they have legitimate concerns as to whether Barack Obama was born in this country. I have a photostatic copy of my birth certificate showing the seal of the state where I was born certifying it to be an official COPY. My certificate of birth lists lots of information on the birth including the date and location of the birth (county and hospital), names of my parents and their address and occupations, signature of the delivering physician, etc. I realize certificates of birth may not be identical in the several states but, to my knowledge, to date Obama has not produced anything similar to such a photostatic copy of his certificate of birth. I grant he has produced something that gives his name and date, etc. but it does not appear to have the official COPY status that some would like to see.
Read me correctly: I am not challenging the fact that Obama was born in this country. I accept that. That's not my issue. What I am reacting to is your and others use of such terms as birthers to denigrate those who are looking for an official COPY, whatever their possible ulterior motive might be.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 26, 2010 19:14:57 GMT -5
Ed - what would your proposed alternative description of the position be? Labels fly around, including anti-life, Marxist, and "socialism," and not all of them are appreciated or correct (like the accusation that i use the term pejoratively - I just use what it is called in mainstream discussion - here, of a bill, not people), so I hope we can come up with something better to the extent some injury has occurred here.
The certification in Obama's case is widely available and includes his birth date, his parents' names, and city/county of birth, among other information. It includes the exact minute at which he was delivered - 7:24 p.m. along with a unique certification number and the seal of the state. It is corroborated by contemporaneous newspaper reporting.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 26, 2010 19:54:19 GMT -5
Ed - what would your proposed alternative description of the position be? Labels fly around, including anti-life, Marxist, and "socialism," and not all of them are appreciated or correct, so I hope we can come up with something better to the extent some injury has occurred here. The certification in Obama's case is widely available and includes his birth date, his parents' names, and city/county of birth, among other information. It includes the exact minute at which he was delivered - 7:24 p.m. along with a unique certification number and the seal of the state. It is corroborated by contemporaneous newspaper reporting. Not to mention, the Governor of Hawaii is a Republican.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 27, 2010 6:13:06 GMT -5
Ed - what would your proposed alternative description of the position be? Labels fly around, including anti-life, Marxist, and "socialism," and not all of them are appreciated or correct (like the accusation that i use the term pejoratively - I just use what it is called in mainstream discussion - here, of a bill, not people), so I hope we can come up with something better to the extent some injury has occurred here. The certification in Obama's case is widely available and includes his birth date, his parents' names, and city/county of birth, among other information. It includes the exact minute at which he was delivered - 7:24 p.m. along with a unique certification number and the seal of the state. It is corroborated by contemporaneous newspaper reporting. It is still not a COPY of the actual certificate of birth.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,774
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 27, 2010 6:34:50 GMT -5
The state of Hawaii no longer keeps paper copies of birth certificates (and that was prior to 2008). Thus, electronic copies are the only records available but are valid in the state for all purposes.
Some of this birther talk really gets strange, kind of like the "we didn't go to the moon" theories out there.
There are really better things to argue about. Reminds me of 2000 when a group of Democrats were going to challenge Dick Cheney's state residency as violating the Constitution that two candidates couldn't be from the same state (GW Bush and Cheney lived about five minutes from each other in Dallas, but Cheney suddenly claimed Wyoming residency before the convention), but decided that it was tilting at windmills, which is what the birther argument comes down to.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,369
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 27, 2010 7:17:45 GMT -5
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 27, 2010 8:55:05 GMT -5
So we have gone from salt, to seatbelts, to illegals, to Obama. Basically we went 2010, 1975*, 2004, 2008- Fantastic
*Wikipedia claims the first US seat belt laws are from 1939 but I find that suspect
|
|