Arizona requires you to carry your papers

[NorthSideSox72]

And they can be potentially sued if they don't push for more.

This is something lost in the discussion it seems. Immigrants or people who aren't lily white are not the people who this causes problems for. You are putting cops in a very tough situation here.

 

[G&T]

And they can be potentially sued if they don't push for more.

 

I think you are misreading that section. It states "adopts or implements a policy." That requires either an official act from the police chief, for example, or a tacit disapproval of the law leading to it not being enforced. I base my interpretation on the language of the remedy because the remedy is determined based on days that policy remained in effect. A citizen cannot, by my reading, sue a police officer for not arresting someone.

[Balta1701]

I think you are misreading that section. It states "adopts or implements a policy." That requires either an official act from the police chief, for example, or a tacit disapproval of the law leading to it not being enforced. I base my interpretation on the language of the remedy because the remedy is determined based on days that policy remained in effect. A citizen cannot, by my reading, sue a police officer for not arresting someone.

Certainly true that there won't be a lawsuit filed against a single police officer for not checking that. However, the individual police officer is going to have to do the checks that his municipality insists upon, correct? If the city/county/state puts out rules saying that the officer doesn't have to do a detailed check, that opens them up at that level to legal action. On the other hand, if the city/county/state puts out the most stringent rules possible, then either the officer goes forward in all cases with a full, detailed check of all documents or the officer is violating his rules.

[G&T]

Certainly true that there won't be a lawsuit filed against a single police officer for not checking that. However, the individual police officer is going to have to do the checks that his municipality insists upon, correct? If the city/county/state puts out rules saying that the officer doesn't have to do a detailed check, that opens them up at that level to legal action. On the other hand, if the city/county/state puts out the most stringent rules possible, then either the officer goes forward in all cases with a full, detailed check of all documents or the officer is violating his rules.

 

I don't think these policies are that specific and aren't generally written. As a practical matter, the lawsuit provision is for show. Try proving that there was an unwritten policy. It could take years of data to know whether a policy is being enforced.

[southsideirish71]

And if they leave those documents safely stored in their hotel room safe, they get deported.

 

Exactly how well does one move around another country without your passport or any current visa's if they are required. I know in the past that my passport has been tied to my hotel room, my flights, and even rentals. Whenever I am in a foreign country I make sure that my passport, and any other documentation is on my person at all times. I have been asked to present my passport before in other countries. Expecting people who are driving to carry a drivers license doesn't seem like a big deal and should be expected. I don't understand how people can walk around without any license or even a state id card.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Certainly true that there won't be a lawsuit filed against a single police officer for not checking that. However, the individual police officer is going to have to do the checks that his municipality insists upon, correct? If the city/county/state puts out rules saying that the officer doesn't have to do a detailed check, that opens them up at that level to legal action. On the other hand, if the city/county/state puts out the most stringent rules possible, then either the officer goes forward in all cases with a full, detailed check of all documents or the officer is violating his rules.

Lawsuits against specific police officers for not enforcing specific laws are pretty much DOA in the court system. Police only enforce a small number of laws and a small number of violators at any given time, and they are given leeway for prioritization. It is wholly impractical to have it any other way.

 

My concerns are not about police officers individually being sued. Its officers being forced, by law or department policy, to enforce a law with the flaws we've noted earlier. it opens them up to disciplinary action, and opens up the department as a whole to litigation.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Certainly true that there won't be a lawsuit filed against a single police officer for not checking that. However, the individual police officer is going to have to do the checks that his municipality insists upon, correct? If the city/county/state puts out rules saying that the officer doesn't have to do a detailed check, that opens them up at that level to legal action. On the other hand, if the city/county/state puts out the most stringent rules possible, then either the officer goes forward in all cases with a full, detailed check of all documents or the officer is violating his rules.

 

The law gives a person a right to sue the state/agency that adopts/implements a policy that is less than Federal Law. It doesn't involve individual police officers, or their actions. They could do whatever they want and never get sued for it (in the context of this law). It's all about the agency/office (and I think maybe the head of that agency/office).

 

You've been harping on this point for 2 days now. Where are you getting this from?

[Balta1701]

The law gives a person a right to sue the state/agency that adopts/implements a policy that is less than Federal Law. It doesn't involve individual police officers, or their actions. They could do whatever they want and never get sued for it (in the context of this law). It's all about the agency/office (and I think maybe the head of that agency/office).

 

You've been harping on this point for 2 days now. Where are you getting this from?

Actually, there's a "Bad faith" exemption that would allow a specific officer to be the target of a lawsuit. Which could easily mean that he or she are subject to a lawsuit if his jurisdiction mandates some level of checking detail and he or she does not do the full check, or something along those lines.

 

Secondly, the way the lawsuit clause is worded, it's quite clear that including the phrase "federal law" is not designed to provide an exemption, it's referring to the clauses in federal law that make it illegal for them to be here. Basically, it's saying that if the feds have not explicitly banned something that would enforce immigration laws, the municipality can be sued if they don't do it. It doesn't say "up to the standards of federal law", it says "To the full extent permitted" by federal law.

Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

To put it 1 way...you're not allowed to shoot a bunch of hispanic looking people, because that violates other aspects of federal law. But if the Feds have not said "You're not allowed to do a detain and do a detailed immigration check in these circumstances", the agency can be sued if they adopt a policy that doesn't require the most stringent check possible.

 

And then, an officer choosing not to follow those regulations would be subject to legal action for acting in bad faith. The most stringent rules possible are required to avoid a lawsuit, and officers can be given no discretion in application of those rules.

[G&T]

Actually, there's a "Bad faith" exemption that would allow a specific officer to be the target of a lawsuit. Which could easily mean that he or she are subject to a lawsuit if his jurisdiction mandates some level of checking detail and he or she does not do the full check, or something along those lines.

 

Bad faith requires acting without any reason or justification based on fact. The real purpose of the exception is provide a remedy for legals who are detained despite showing proper ID. The provision has nothing to do with the mandate of an agency.

[Balta1701]

Bad faith requires acting without any reason or justification based on fact. The real purpose of the exception is provide a remedy for legals who are detained despite showing proper ID. The provision has nothing to do with the mandate of an agency.

No, that's not what it says at all. This bad faith provision is quite explicitly saying that officers can't be sued for following the rules of their governing authority...but the indemnity goes away if the officer doesn't follow local rules.

I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT

28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY

29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR

30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A

31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW

32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS

33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

[NorthSideSox72]

No, that's not what it says at all. This bad faith provision is quite explicitly saying that officers can't be sued for following the rules of their governing authority...but the indemnity goes away if the officer doesn't follow local rules.

You are missing G&T's point. Bad faith is more than just failing to enforce some specific law. Those cases just don't fly, they can't possibly, otherwise you could sue every cop in the country for things they do every day. The law not specifying indemnity to individual officers isn't there because it is about protecting the agency. The officer needs no protection here because he's not liable in the type of situation you mention.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

You are missing G&T's point. Bad faith is more than just failing to enforce some specific law. Those cases just don't fly, they can't possibly, otherwise you could sue every cop in the country for things they do every day. The law not specifying indemnity to individual officers isn't there because it is about protecting the agency. The officer needs no protection here because he's not liable in the type of situation you mention.

 

Most states, like Illinois, have a ton of public immunity statutes that provide individual employees of municipalities/governments from being sued unless there's more than just negligence. That would cover 99% of what a cop would do.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[G&T]

You are missing G&T's point. Bad faith is more than just failing to enforce some specific law. Those cases just don't fly, they can't possibly, otherwise you could sue every cop in the country for things they do every day. The law not specifying indemnity to individual officers isn't there because it is about protecting the agency. The officer needs no protection here because he's not liable in the type of situation you mention.

 

Yeah that about covers it.

[Texsox]

Visa, that is valid? Yes. Passport? Not necessarily, if they can't check it through the immigration systems. And last I know, cops ont he street don't have passport scanners on the MCATs. They'd have to call INS or whomever.

 

IIRC we now require a VISA or green card in addition to the passport. Basically a passport does not expire and Mexican Nationals can only stay 90 days as visitors. We allow Canadians 180 days. I wonder why?

[GoodAsGould]

I haven't put much into researching the law besides glancing at this thread and an article or two, but I'd imagine the primary focus would be to attack companies that hire illegal immigrants. As far as profiling individuals, I think the only reason one would have to worry is if they are gang related, doing something illegal/suspicous, or like previously mentioned if a cop pulls over a car for speeding/running a light/etc. and driver cant produce a license.

[EvilMonkey]

Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

The way I interpreted this was that it was to ensure that cities and police departments didn't adopt 'save haven' zones like San Francisco. if they did, the citizens could sue them for now upholding the law. I think you stretch it to try and make a point.

[BigSqwert]

This is what the Pima County Sheriff has to say:

SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn't comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."

 

Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. "If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they're going to do it. They'll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that's not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney."

 

 

[southsider2k5]

IIRC we now require a VISA or green card in addition to the passport. Basically a passport does not expire and Mexican Nationals can only stay 90 days as visitors. We allow Canadians 180 days. I wonder why?

 

Canada hasn't invaded us with 10 million ish people?

[kapkomet]

And if they leave those documents safely stored in their hotel room safe, they get deported.

 

 

Hi, straw man.

[lostfan]

This law seems like burying your head in the sand to me. All we need to do to stop illegal immigration is be tougher on the immigrants! America, f*** yeah, let's get urr jeibs back from them messi-cans!" This does nothing but put a particularly ugly shade of lipstick on a pig. If the following things are still going to happen...

 

1. American employers hire illegals (particularly for unregulated labor at low wages)

2. Mexico is unable or unwilling to control itself internally, reduce poverty, control drug trade, etc.

3. United States is unable or unwilling to curb demand FOR drugs coming from Mexico, which are the reason for drug wars in the first place

 

Then illegals will keep coming and will continue to be a fact of life here in the U.S. and we are going to have trouble securing our own border.

Edited April 29, 2010 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

This law seems like burying your head in the sand to me. All we need to do to stop illegal immigration is be tougher on the immigrants! America, f*** yeah, let's get urr jeibs back from them messi-cans!" This does nothing but put a particularly ugly shade of lipstick on a pig. If the following things are still going to happen...

 

1. American employers hire illegals (particularly for unregulated labor at low wages)

2. Mexico is unable or unwilling to control itself internally, reduce poverty, control drug trade, etc.

3. United States is unable or unwilling to curb demand FOR drugs coming from Mexico, which are the reason for drug wars in the first place

 

Then illegals will keep coming and will continue to be a fact of life here in the U.S. and we are going to have trouble securing our own border.

 

Mexico has no interest in #2. They just export it to the US, and get the extra added bonus of them sending cash back home. It is a win-win.

[lostfan]

Mexico has no interest in #2. They just export it to the US, and get the extra added bonus of them sending cash back home. It is a win-win.

Yeah pretty much. I don't see any of those things changing anytime soon. 1 can be done, 3 maybe if we experimented with legalizing drugs, but that's not going to happen either.

[kapkomet]

Yeah pretty much. I don't see any of those things changing anytime soon. 1 can be done, 3 maybe if we experimented with legalizing drugs, but that's not going to happen either.

 

Just go smoke some home grown and post some more facebook statuses.

[lostfan]

I could only imagine if I posted all my Facebook statuses while stoned.

[mac9001]

I haven't posted on this site in a while, but this thread caught my attention.

 

After reading through the first 10 pages or so i noticed no one brought up what the consequences may be if this law actually succeeds in removing illegal immigrants. After taking a few minutes to examine the underlying purpose of this legislation it occurs to me how incredibly shortsighted and reactive people have become on the issue of illegal immigration. Putting the emotional hyperbole aside lets examine a few basic illustrations if the underlying intention of mass deportation succeeds.

 

I've seen estimates of roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona. I've read studies which claim illegal immigrants make roughly 65-70% the per capita income of a US born residents. Hypothetically if they somehow managed to to deport all 500,000 illegals, assuming 65-70% of Arizona's per capita income of $32,953 in 2008 you get a economic impact of roughly $10.7 to $11.5 billion dollars. Now those billions are used to support numerous business (restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations), so the economic impact can probably be magnified substantially. Then you have the issue of reducing the aggregate population by several hundred thousand residents. When taking that into context the already devastated local real estate market you drastically reduce demand and increase the supply. Housing markets are incredibly sensitive and surprisingly interconnected, a large decline in potential renters/home owners will severely depress housing prices. Furthermore cities with rapid population decline struggle to attract investment and as a general rule create incentives for others to leave (declines home prices are a guaranteed way to keep potential residents away).

 

Now i can continue for hours illustrating potential consequences of each successive variables (many of which could potentially be positive), but the point i'm trying to make is despite how some people portray illegal immigrants as insignificant they are indeed inclusive residents of this country. They earn income, they consume, they save, in the case of Arizona they constitute a substantial percentage of their population and as a result their production and consumption. While each individual illegal immigrant may seem insignificant, when you suddenly have half a million on your hands you can't simple remove them and not expect severe economic consequences, mostly negative consequences.

 

While it may seem i'm defending illegal immigrants i can assure you that's not my intention. I don't support the principle of illegal immigration, i have nothing against mass deportation on purely moral grounds, these people have broken laws and they don't particularly deserve our pity or mercy. But the sad reality is, particularly in states such as Arizona, illegal immigration is simply too big to fail (sort of becoming a general trend with issues in our country). You can blame two decades of government indifference and incompetence for allowing the problem to get out of hand, but at this point we have just as much to lose as the illegals. The supporters of this current legislation need to put their emotional attachments to this issue aside and look at it this from a practical perspective. We're probably not going to stop illegal immigration anytime soon, so at the very least lets take steps to ensure we're not hurting our own interests through reactive legislation primarily motivated by frustration. There has to be a compromise somewhere between mass deportations and amnesty and until our elected leaders sit down and at least attempt to address the situation we're leaving the decisions in the hands of those whom have shown no real commitment to finding a practical solution to this mess.

Edited April 29, 2010 by mac9001