Chances 'Very Good' Arizona Law Will Stand

by Connie Hair 05/06/2010

Over the past nearly two weeks, supporters of illegal immigration have been literally hyperventilating over Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law -- and spreading misinformation.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, hosted a media briefing on the new law yesterday with Kris Kobach, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, A.B. (Harvard University); Ph.D., M.Phil. (Oxford University); J.D. (Yale School of Law).

Kobach has litigated a number of high-profile lawsuits in the field of immigration. He is also the principal drafter of Arizona’s new immigration law.

One of the key points of misinformation has been the “show me your papers” comparison to Nazi Germany.


“The Arizona law merely adds a layer of state penalties to what was already federal law,” Kobach explained. “It has long been a requirement of federal law for aliens to have certain documents on their person while in the United States, just as it is a requirement in most countries on the planet for U.S. citizens who travel there to have their documents in their possession while in that country.”

The Obama Lie

Another leading point of misinformation is the claim the law creates a police power to detain someone merely going out for ice cream -- because law enforcement thinks they “look illegal.”

“In the enforcement through a stop, detention or arrest, on the basis of a violation of any state, county or local law in Arizona, at that point the officer who is investigating the law that was violated, whatever was the basis of the stop -- speeding would be the most typical example -- if the officer at that point develops reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, then the officer must contact the federal government and verify whether or not the person is indeed unlawfully present in the United States,” Kobach said.

“Reasonable suspicion” Kobach explains is something the courts have been defining for 40 years.

“There are literally dozens and even over 100 opinions defining what reasonable suspicion means -- a great number of them in the context of illegal immigration,” Kobach said. “Reasonable suspicion includes numerous factors and there have to be two or more factors present for reasonable suspicion to exist that a person is unlawfully present in the United States.”

Some examples Kobach gave include someone with no documentation on his person whatsoever. It can include a person traveling on a known alien smuggling corridor. They might show evidence of having just crossed the desert.

“Courts have looked at dusty shoes and pants and backpacks with water bottles on the person indicating that he has just completed a long journey,” Kobach said. “All of these things can constitute individual factors that add up to reasonable suspicion.”

The infrastructure for checking legal status already exists and is used by law enforcement nationwide. The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) is a database tool under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security.

“Numbers from fiscal year 2005, the latest numbers I have at hand, LESC responded to a very large number of calls -- 504,678 calls from state and local law enforcement officers,” Kobach said. “That’s about 1,383 calls a day. Most of those calls are from law enforcement officers in traffic stops or similar situations coming upon individuals who they believe are unlawfully present.”

Imagine that.

Kobach also said the bill was drafted with the full knowledge that certain organizations would try to defeat the law.

“Arizona’s already been down this litigation road three times before,” he said. “The last three major laws to discourage illegal immigration in Arizona were all challenged in court. Those three were the 2004 Proposition 200 which limited public benefits to illegal aliens. That was challenged in court, went up to the Ninth Circuit and Arizona won.”

“In 2005, Arizona passed its human smuggling act at the state level that was challenged in state court and I assisted Maricopa County in defending the constitutionality of that act and Arizona won,” Kobach continued.

“In 2007, Arizona passed an employer act that requires employers to use E-Verify,” he said. “That was challenged, went up to the Ninth Circuit U.S. court and Arizona won.”

E-Verify is an internet based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.

And the Ninth Circuit is arguably the most liberal court in the nation -- the court having once ruled “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.

Kobach helped draft the Arizona employer act and believes this one will also withstand legal challenge.

“Arizona is three for three, they’ve been down this road before and they’ve taken great care to draft their laws carefully,” Kobach said.

He said there’s one complaint already filed by the National Organization of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders that make the same faulty argument of preemption.

“This is one of the reasons that it mirrors federal law when it comes to the documentation provision,” Kobach said. “Courts look for conflict between the federal statute and the state law being challenged. If there is tension or conflict between them then preemption is likely. If the laws are in harmony as is the case with Arizona -- because the Arizona law actually says you can’t be guilty of violating the documentation provisions unless you are guilty of violating the cited federal laws -- then what you have is called perfect concurrent enforcement, the courts have referred to it, concurrent enforcement being the state and the federal government are enforcing against the same conduct.”

That makes it difficult for the argument of preemption to stick.

“The other argument that they will make is they will claim an equal protection violation based on the hypothetical possibility that there might be racial profiling,” he said. “Given that the law expressly prohibits racial profiling it will be very difficult for them to prevail on that one as well.”

“I think that the chances are very good that the Arizona law will stand,” Kobach concluded.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36865

I can't imagine how people can defend "illegal" immigration as somehow being invasive of their rights or even an entitlement. I know what you're all saying, "shut up Steve, you'll only get a headache if you try to figure out the logic of liberals who are borderline mental cases."

I like all the I am pretty sure the fix the governor made will satisfy the courts but it wasn't anywhere near guaranteed before the change.

S&M, you keep repeating the same crap. Most people weren't defending illegal immigration. That was some delusion of some rightwing talk show host or Faux "News".

(05-09-2010 10:41 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I like all the I am pretty sure the fix the governor made will satisfy the courts but it wasn't anywhere near guaranteed before the change.

S&M, you keep repeating the same crap. Most people weren't defending illegal immigration. That was some delusion of some rightwing talk show host or Faux "News".

BullCrapDumba$$,

Progressives / Liberals have been combing "legal" immigration and "illegal immigration" for a long time. The "fix" is just a reiteration of what the law already is. The Governor cannot make law, the laws are made by the legislature, remember?

I still don't think that this law is a good one. It leaves the door open to a million abuses. It's a step in the right direction but I think it could be different.

What I'd like someone to explain is exactly how this law opens any doors to abuses that were not already open.

I think the problem that we need to attack is the abuses themselves, which have so far shown their ability to happen under any legal regime.

I would not have voted for this law, because I think it invites the kind of demagoguing attacks that have occurred.

(05-10-2010 08:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I still don't think that this law is a good one. It leaves the door open to a million abuses. It's a step in the right direction but I think it could be different.

How? You want it more touchy-feely????. We've been colliding the law breakers for far too long. They have eaten up our social services $Dollars$$ till we are almost bankrupt. You touchy-feely liberal progressives better wake up or The USA will be over-run by people who have no allegiance to the USA.

(05-10-2010 08:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I still don't think that this law is a good one. It leaves the door open to a million abuses. It's a step in the right direction but I think it could be different.

I can see your point.

But we already see abuses when the gov't doesn't enforce its laws.

Virtually every law has potential abuses. They weren't joking when they said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

(05-10-2010 09:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'd like someone to explain is exactly how this law opens any doors to abuses that were not already open.

I think the problem that we need to attack is the abuses themselves, which have so far shown their ability to happen under any legal regime.

I would not have voted for this law, because I think it invites the kind of demagoguing attacks that have occurred.

agreed....and I doubt very seriously that it will have much impact on the number of travelers coming in. Looks like a lot of sound and fury to me.

(05-10-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 08:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I still don't think that this law is a good one. It leaves the door open to a million abuses. It's a step in the right direction but I think it could be different.

How? You want it more touchy-feely????. We've been colliding the law breakers for far too long. They have eaten up our social services $Dollars$$ till we are almost bankrupt. You touchy-feely liberal progressives better wake up or The USA will be over-run by people who have no allegiance to the USA.

I like how that when someone disagrees with you they are liberal, progressive, commies, or whatever, but I am none of those. I want the illegals in our prisons sent back, I want those who can't prove residence status to not be able to get our jobs, and if you can't prove that you are on the road to citizenship, SS dollars should be out of your grasps. All of those things are meant for Americans or legal residents and must stay that way.

Enforce a society where you have to be here on legal traveler, student, permanent resident, or citizen status to receive any benefits that are reserved for people in those categories. Don't give them jobs, money, incarceration, or rehabilitation and they will be flying across the boarder.

(05-09-2010 10:41 PM)RobertN Wrote:  S&M, you keep repeating the same crap. Most people weren't defending illegal immigration. That was some delusion of some rightwing talk show host or Faux "News".

RoboLib, MANY people on both political sides defend illegal immigration - but before we talk about any of that, the term immigration is not the correct term because an immigrant is here legally, it's like using the term illegal citizen. So the correct term is illegal alien.

I'm sure you would agree that the main reason the illegal aliens come here is to improve their lives because there's nothing in Mexico for them. Mexico has no reason to improve their lives because then they'd have to not onlyu pay for the services they use, but they'll also miss out on the money the illegals send home. With that in mind, the next generation of illegals has already been born with Mexico just waiting for them to risk their lives to come here.

Now here the problem you don't grasp; every time an illegal alien comes here there's one less Mexican in Mexico that can change things. If we stopped letting them into this country and sending the ones that are here back to Mexico then the Mexican government would be forced to address the problem. If we completely stopped the illegals then they'd have no choice but to revolt in order to effect change. Sure, it would suck for the ones doing the revolting, but our forefathers struggled so we didn't have to and the current crop of illegals can be the leaders of their movement. By welcoming them with open arms you ensure that Mexico will never improve the lot of the lowly peasant thereby promising future waves of illegals trying to escape from a corrupt country. Come on, RoboLib, do the future generations of would-be illegals a favor and send the current ones back.

(05-10-2010 08:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I still don't think that this law is a good one. It leaves the door open to a million abuses. It's a step in the right direction but I think it could be different.

The law is good and it partially addresses the 12,000,000 illegal alien abuses we currently have to withstand. The problem with the liberals, and not necessarily you, is they feel that if an illegal manages to sneak into this country we shouldn't touch them. Thank god those people aren't defensive coordinators because by their reasoning safeties couldn't tackle running backs who make it past the line of scrimmage because that's the purview of the linebackers - we are, as a country, a team, aren't we?

Also, by simply not giving them jobs the illegals would have to resort to any means possible to get food and such and the only way I can think of is crime. Besides, if illegals start flooding back into Mexico by the hundreds of thousands I'm willing to bet you that Mexico would use their military to put a halt to the migration back to Mexico because they'd have all kinds of problems dealing with poor, sick unemployed people.

(05-10-2010 06:57 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-09-2010 10:41 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I like all the I am pretty sure the fix the governor made will satisfy the courts but it wasn't anywhere near guaranteed before the change.

S&M, you keep repeating the same crap. Most people weren't defending illegal immigration. That was some delusion of some rightwing talk show host or Faux "News".

BullCrapDumba$$,

Progressives / Liberals have been combing "legal" immigration and "illegal immigration" for a long time. The "fix" is just a reiteration of what the law already is. The Governor cannot make law, the laws are made by the legislature, remember?

Well, I guess if what she wrote has no effect on the bill, I now understand why the hispanic citizens are still protesting.

Btw, the "fix" was NOT just a reiteration of the law. The "fix" stated "probable cause" while the bill calls for "reasonable suspicion". A HUGE difference.

(05-10-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 08:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I still don't think that this law is a good one. It leaves the door open to a million abuses. It's a step in the right direction but I think it could be different.

How? You want it more touchy-feely????. We've been colliding the law breakers for far too long. They have eaten up our social services $Dollars$$ till we are almost bankrupt. You touchy-feely liberal progressives better wake up or The USA will be over-run by people who have no allegiance to the USA.

Maybe the corporations hiring them should actually pay taxes to support their employees "social services"?

(05-10-2010 09:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 08:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I still don't think that this law is a good one. It leaves the door open to a million abuses. It's a step in the right direction but I think it could be different.

The law is good and it partially addresses the 12,000,000 illegal alien abuses we currently have to withstand. The problem with the liberals, and not necessarily you, is they feel that if an illegal manages to sneak into this country we shouldn't touch them. Thank god those people aren't defensive coordinators because by their reasoning safeties couldn't tackle running backs who make it past the line of scrimmage because that's the purview of the linebackers - we are, as a country, a team, aren't we?

Also, by simply not giving them jobs the illegals would have to resort to any means possible to get food and such and the only way I can think of is crime. Besides, if illegals start flooding back into Mexico by the hundreds of thousands I'm willing to bet you that Mexico would use their military to put a halt to the migration back to Mexico because they'd have all kinds of problems dealing with poor, sick unemployed people.

As you know, I am a liberal. I don't think illegals shouldn't be touched. What I have a problem with is the bill. Well, I did if the "fix" actually means anything in terms of prosecuting the bill. If it is just words, then I still have a problem with the bill because "probable cause" and "resonable suspicion" are VERY different.

(05-11-2010 03:46 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 09:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 08:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I still don't think that this law is a good one. It leaves the door open to a million abuses. It's a step in the right direction but I think it could be different.

The law is good and it partially addresses the 12,000,000 illegal alien abuses we currently have to withstand. The problem with the liberals, and not necessarily you, is they feel that if an illegal manages to sneak into this country we shouldn't touch them. Thank god those people aren't defensive coordinators because by their reasoning safeties couldn't tackle running backs who make it past the line of scrimmage because that's the purview of the linebackers - we are, as a country, a team, aren't we?

Also, by simply not giving them jobs the illegals would have to resort to any means possible to get food and such and the only way I can think of is crime. Besides, if illegals start flooding back into Mexico by the hundreds of thousands I'm willing to bet you that Mexico would use their military to put a halt to the migration back to Mexico because they'd have all kinds of problems dealing with poor, sick unemployed people.

As you know, I am a liberal. I don't think illegals shouldn't be touched. What I have a problem with is the bill. Well, I did if the "fix" actually means anything in terms of prosecuting the bill. If it is just words, then I still have a problem with the bill because "probable cause" and "resonable suspicion" are VERY different.

Very Different? How? You do not even know.

(05-11-2010 03:27 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 06:57 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-09-2010 10:41 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I like all the I am pretty sure the fix the governor made will satisfy the courts but it wasn't anywhere near guaranteed before the change.

S&M, you keep repeating the same crap. Most people weren't defending illegal immigration. That was some delusion of some rightwing talk show host or Faux "News".

BullCrapDumba$$,

Progressives / Liberals have been combing "legal" immigration and "illegal immigration" for a long time. The "fix" is just a reiteration of what the law already is. The Governor cannot make law, the laws are made by the legislature, remember?

Well, I guess if what she wrote has no effect on the bill, I now understand why the hispanic citizens are still protesting.

Btw, the "fix" was NOT just a reiteration of the law. The "fix" stated "probable cause" while the bill calls for "reasonable suspicion". A HUGE difference.

Probable cause is what you need to arrest someone.

Reasonable suspicion is what you need to lawfully detain someone and talk to them.

Basically the police can do what they already had the power to do. The only difference is now Arizona can punish you for breaking immigration law rather than just leaving it up to the feds.

(05-09-2010 09:26 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Chances 'Very Good' Arizona Law Will Stand

by Connie Hair 05/06/2010

“In the enforcement through a stop, detention or arrest, on the basis of a violation of any state, county or local law in Arizona, at that point the officer who is investigating the law that was violated, whatever was the basis of the stop -- speeding would be the most typical example -- if the officer at that point develops reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, then the officer must contact the federal government and verify whether or not the person is indeed unlawfully present in the United States,” Kobach said.

“Reasonable suspicion” Kobach explains is something the courts have been defining for 40 years.

“There are literally dozens and even over 100 opinions defining what reasonable suspicion means -- a great number of them in the context of illegal immigration,” Kobach said. “Reasonable suspicion includes numerous factors and there have to be two or more factors present for reasonable suspicion to exist that a person is unlawfully present in the United States.”

Some examples Kobach gave include someone with no documentation on his person whatsoever. It can include a person traveling on a known alien smuggling corridor. They might show evidence of having just crossed the desert.

“Courts have looked at dusty shoes and pants and backpacks with water bottles on the person indicating that he has just completed a long journey,” Kobach said. “All of these things can constitute individual factors that add up to reasonable suspicion.”

Or the woman that showed up at the McAllen Airport in with muddy clothes.

A South African woman picked up in Texas almost 10 days ago may turn out to be a key, high-level al-Qaida operative.

Her name is Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed. She was stopped at McAllen Miller International Airport on July 19. She was headed to New York.

Eddie Flores of the U.S. Border Patrol office in McAllen, Texas, tells FederalNewsRadio.com that a review of her papers raised some concerns.

"In looking at her documents, they did not find any entry documents in her passport where she was legally admitted into the United States," says Flores.

Ahmed produced a South African passport to the agents with four pages torn out, and with no U.S. entry stamps. Ahmed reportedly later confessed to investigators that she entered the country illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River. Ahmed was carrying travel itineraries showing a July 8 flight from Johannesburg, South Africa, to London. Six days later, Ahmed traveled from London to Mexico City before attempting to travel from McAllen to New York.

Government sources tell FederalNewsRadio.com that capturing this woman could be comparable to the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. It was revealed in court Tuesday that she was on a watch list and had entered the U.S. possibly as many as 250 times.

Tuesday, the South African government issued a warning that al-Qaida militants and other terrorists traveling through Europe had obtained South African passports, and authorities believe they got them from crime syndicates operating inside the government agency that issues the documents.

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=236719&nid=104

(05-11-2010 03:27 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, I guess if what she wrote has no effect on the bill, I now understand why the hispanic citizens are still protesting.

Please explain why it's just the Hispanics that are protesting and not the Italians, Asians, Canadians, etc....