Ubaldo Jimenez Detained in AZ As Illegal

The law won't force them out of the country any more quickly. They'll sit in Arizona jails, at taxpayer expense, until the feds get to them.

That's right, teabaggers -- this law GUARANTEES illegals will suck from the public teat! They got you again!

 

I'm against this law, but technically I think cops could already be harassing people based on racial profiling, if they wanted.

No one follows 100 percent of the law when driving. We all either go too fast or follow too close or change lanes without signaling. Couldn't the cops just sit there by the road and "profile" the drivers as they went by, and then pull over the ones they wanted for whatever minor infraction they could find. If the person doesn't have a driver's license, off to the INS.

Bottom line is that cops probably aren't going to start chasing down all sorts of random people to look to deport them because of this law. Which means that this law really does nothing except pander to a part of the population and piss off another part, all while probably being unconstitutional.

 

There's nothing to reconcile. I'm in favor of immigration control and reform. I'm in favor a real, workable immigration policy.
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of badly conceived and/or poorly written laws.
You can support a given end without supporting every possible means to achieve it.

 

The Players Association came out against the law today.

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/20100430_weiner_statement_on_arizona_immigration_law.pdf

 

You could probably mount a successful "as applied" challenge if you could prove that the real reason you were pulled over wasn't speeding, but because of your race.

 

I just heard a report on the radio that the WBC is boycotting the state by not scheduling any fights that include Mexican fighters.
Obviously, that represents a big chunk of fights, but that's still a weak boycott. If you're going to boycott, boycott. There are no caveats to boycotting.

 

WFW

 

I agree with you. My point is that the cops aren't going to do it MORE once this law is passed than they were already. So it's a worthless law.

And also a bad, unconstitutional one.

 

I don't know about that. Part of the law is that citizens have the right to sue their local police if they feel like they're not doing enough to enforce the law, a provision I've never heard applied to any other law anywhere. By that measure alone, going after "reasonably suspicious" people to see if they're illegal immigrants leaps to the top spot, over murder, of crimes to look out for, because you can get dragged into court if you're not out there pulling over cars and checking papers.

 

So if stopping people for no reason is unconstitutional, how are DUI checkpoints legal?

 

Well, that's a good question. William Rehnquist wrote the opinion in the 1990 case that said they were OK, although some states have their own bans. The argument was that keeping drunk drivers off the road outweighed the ding to the Fourth Amendment. In a little cut-and-paste, here are the guidelines to make your checkpoint legal:

* Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
* A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
* Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
* The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
* Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
* Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
* Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
* Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.

So Officer Joe can't just set up a site and pick out whomever he wants along the way because he feels like it that day.