Bankrupting Arizona
The new Jose Crow law in Arizona is going to cause a lot of nightmares for the state. Check out this provision in the law:
G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION
Yes indeedy you read that right: ANYONE who is upset that this law isn’t being enforced vigorously enough can sue, damn near any agency of the state, and if they prevail, not only are their court costs paid, but the loser is fined at least $1,000 a DAY, not from the time you win , but from the time you FILED SUIT, meaning that if an average lawsuit takes 1 year + from filing to final verdict that’s a MINIMUM fine of $300,000+ every time.
So I imagine we’re going to see a huge raft of lawsuits of people who are upset that enough brown people aren’t getting stopped and harassed as well as people upset that not enough white people are being stopped and harassed. I have no idea WTF Arizona was thinking in drafting this provision of the law. To me it seems like the perfect “out” for Gov. Brewer to have vetoed the bill, but profile in courage she ain’t.
Tags: Arizona, Immigration, SB 1070
Not only could there be problems from those who think it doesn’t go far enough (Wow!), but there will be huge consequences if it IS enforced. Here’s one man’s take:
This won’t happen often, but I agree with this guy — especially the last part. I don’t think it will last long. Oh, and who was this liberal party-pooper? FOX analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.
I’m hoping some citizens group will use court records under this law as discovery to bring down the illegal employers – or better still, force the state to bring down the illegal employers.
Public defenders, make sure your clients name their employers in court.
Yours is a willful misreading of the law. It clearly states that the agency being sued must have taken positive action to hinder the enforcement of immigration law.
Judis: While Republicans may pick up a few more percent of the angry white vote in November 2010, they can kiss the Hispanic vote goodbye—and not just in Arizona. That may not have meant much in 1935, but in the years to come, it could seal the Republicans’ fate as a minority party. That’s at least one price they’ll pay for being mean and crazy.
http://www.tnr.com/article/bad-land
The portion of the law is posted above – it allows individuals to sue state and local agencies if they think the law’s not being enforced. You don’t think people who think there isn’t enough racial profiling going on aren’t going to sue? Also, people who were wrongfully detained will also sue. It’s going to be lawsuit central.
You are misreading the law, it is aimed at Sanctuary cities and agencies which make an effort to disobey the law. As for the constitutinality, the concept should stand. The state is no where forbidden to allow people to reside their who have no legal right to do so under federal law. The federal government set immigration laws. The state has a right to enforce them within its borders. Nothing forbids that. The state has to pass a law which makes being in the state illegally by federal standards a crime first. This is what this law does. I can not say that some portions will stand, but the concept should if a reasonable reading of the constitution is held. The enforcement will be important. That could run into 4th and 14th amendment issues if not done correctly.
I am skeptical that some parts are too vague and sweeping. As the judge points out, the enforcement has to be consistent with other laws or else it will lead to many suits. The Governor seems to have that under control with the state police. I am not sure about county sheriffs.
But it sure has the feds attention now, huh UI?
There is nothing wrong with the concept of trying to secure our boarders. But this law doesn’t define what “suspicious” activity looks like. It is all up to the police offers to decide what is or isn’t the typical behavior of an illegal. What it also does is allow ever JD Hayworth Minute Man out there to call the cops on every non Aryan who drives down their street. There are plenty legal immigrants, or even American citizens who look ethnically Mexican, keep to their country’s culture and speak more Spanish and English. In the Arizona Reich Stag and among the wingnuts who seem to make up most of the electorate there, THAT could cause a cop so say “show me your papers!”
This law forces otherwise good cops to be racist, or risk being sued by Bubba-Joe because some brown fella looked at his wife, or might take his job, or whatever the fear du year is.
I feel a serious battle on immigration coming up. And i expect it to be fueled by conservative racism. Look for Luntzian talking points like “defending the complexion of America” or “maintaining or heritage” Allowing more people to become America citizens can only produce positive results. More taxes for the treasury, more people spending money and moving the economy, keeping up in population with other booming countries…. the only thing is, the people on the Right only want those new Americans to be white, or an acceptable Brown like Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio. … basically a non white person who “shows humility” I think is how they term it.
The right wing is going to lose if they continue to embrace racism. If they are as obviously against Hispanics on this issue as they have been against Blacks sine 68, or the poor sine the 30s or the sick for the past 20 years, when the white people are outnumbered in states like Texas, Az, you name it by Hispanic AMERICAN CITIZENS, say goodbye to the Solid South. They will pay dearly for keeping a group of people down. and unlike they way THEY like to make people pay (violence), it will be with a good ol’ democratic election.
The Obama administration has to stay strong on this one. I don’t think we should just grant everyone citizenship instantly. Having to pay back taxes is a start, but why not add a year of service. Everyone who has broken the law by coming here illegally and taking out precious lettuce picking jobs (<snark) should have to pay a price, but why not make it benefit everyone. no LefTybags, i am not talking about military service, but why not one year in Americorps or Habitat? Help improve the country for a year and you get a clean slate and a clear path to citizenship.
A. price would make it mandatory for everyone to serve in the military and advance american imperialism!
Eligibility Bill introduced in Georgia
The Post and Email
by Kathleen Gotto
(Apr. 24, 2010) — Georgia Representative Mark Hatfield has introduced into the state legislature House Bill 1516, which would require proof of eligibility in order for presidential candidates’ names to be placed on the state ballot for future elections.
America must do more to help its states that share a border with Mexico deal with the problems of illegal immigration, especially in light of the drug war going on that is spilling across our border and bringing violent criminals with it. I think we should welcome immigrants to our country, but they must come through legal means.
That said, this law is dreadfully unconstiutional and just plain scary. If anything, it adds to an already overburdened police force that simply does not have time to be the border patrol as well. I can’t help but think that in some way, this is a desperate cry for help from lawmakers who have no idea how to deal with the very real, serious problems currently facing Arizona and other border states. Profiling minorities is certainly not the answer, but if it leads to comprehensive immigration reform and a more secure border, then perhaps the cloud has a silver lining.
let’s be careful with “the ends justify the means” argument. If even one legal immigrant or US citizen is detained and or penalized because they “fit the description” and aren’t carrying their papers (still undefined), it is one too many.
“(Apr. 24, 2010) — Georgia Representative Mark Hatfield has introduced into the state legislature House Bill 1516, which would require proof of eligibility in order for presidential candidates’ names to be placed on the state ballot for future elections.”
welp P, looks like you birthers won! YAY HUZZAH KUDOS! THAT will show the Kenyan usurp…. wait, what?
whats that you say? he has provided a birth certificate numerous times and will be able to provide one again? And whats that you say? when he does you are just going to deny that it is real? or just keep denying that it had been produced even when you are looking right at it? And you say that no matter how much overwhelming proof you are presented with, you will never concede because your hatred for Obama and progressives is greater than reality? This bill is nothing more than a petulant attempt to pander to all the Timothy McViegh wanna be’s who inhabit the South.
And while you tri-state liberals are getting your rage on–Colorado has decided to charge out-of-state tuition to Colorado high school graduates who have not pursued legal citizenship status or residency, and want to attend a Colorado state school. Arizona doesn’t do that.
Quote of the Day via Bob Cesca:
Keep it up, Joanne. I enjoy seeing you reveal yourself for the xenophobic hick you are, while you get a pass from most of the people here just because you’re polite.
Joanne, what you are describing, as you describe it, sounds reasonable. Just because Arizona doesn’t do that doesn’t justify their law….I fail to see your point.
how is what Colorado is doing even close to Arizona. They are implementing a financial penalty for students who didn’t pursue citizenship. If they are trying to become a US citizen they are considered a resident of CO. If not, they arent a resident. PLain and simple. Sounds fair to me.
What Arizona has done is make it illegal to look foreign and not have papers with you at all times. Arizona Uber Alles
Tell you what Geezer, I will let my polite pass excuse your xenophobic hick comment. There are real problems this country is facing, and if polls reveal 70% of Arizonians support measures that have been passed for that state–then I say the feds better step it up, and offer some sort of workable remedy–or deal with the frustration,anger and cost of doing nothing. Lip service could only keep the states involved appeased for so long.
And I said all that without including a personal insult to a nameless blogger.
The point being M. Mcain–is, this is not all about “anti-alien, immigrant, Mexican–get ’em if you see one”. They are encouraged to pursue higher ed, and often paid for–but suspected illicit activity will now initiate questions of citizenship.
This is not helpful.
Yeah, sorry, Joanne, I was over the top. I have no evidence that you’re xenophobic.
I maintain that the difference between liberals and conservatives is what they’re afraid of, and what outrages them. Your failure to express outrage at the conservative foolishness of the day is, therefore, a constant irritant to an already grumpy liberal.
But….but…but…what about the hick part?
Probably where we differ is I don’t assign foolishness to either side. It pigeonholes a stance, that obviously had enough support of both sides to pass. The outrage should have been heard when the problem was identified, over and over and over again–instead we get outrage over a legislated solution.
How about I tell you I AM OUTRAGED that any Republican or conservative is wasting time trying to repeal HCR–instead of working with it, within it, and beyond it? Can that cover a foolishness of the day? YES, I AM OUTRAGED–and THEY ARE WRONG!!!!
Even though I’m genetically related to folks with that spelling – and most others – that is not how my name is spelled. And I don’t think I implied what you said at all – but the fact that “suspicion” can now lead to stopping someone and asking for papers is shady at best. That is a loose, vague term that can lead to abuse of power. Indeed, something for a teabagger to actually be outraged about and protest!
I guess UI wasn’t content with being pwnd by me, he also needed a lashing from Rep. Dave before he gave up his silly bankrupt AZ idea…
What a funny troll you are. Pwnd doesn’t mean what you think it means, obviously.
it most certainly does
anon1 wrote down his/her opinion without any analysis and back-up data and declared himself the winner. That is so adorable. *pat, pat, pat* Cute little baby troll.
it’s funny because you are the one trolling me. i dont care though. my post was the analysis, and the back up data was the text of the law. thats all i need.
I think you need a new dictionary: “troll,” “analysis” and “pwnd” don’t mean what your think they mean.
I’m thinking proving standing might not be so clear cut.
For those conservatives who are talking about the “intent” of the law: I don’t know how the AZ Supreme Court works, but here in Delaware the courts aren’t set up to rule on what the legislature meant to say, they work from the actual text. And the word “reasonable” strikes many a reasonable person as an enormous loophole that will lead to a great deal of mischief.
Comment by anon1: Yours is a willful misreading of the law. It clearly states that the agency being sued must have taken positive action to hinder the enforcement of immigration law
The law provides the following: “A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:”
If a drug enforcement unit decides to promise witnesses they will not arrest them for being in AZ/US illegally if they provide them with information regarding a drug dealer (or who murdered a cop et cetera) The drug enforcement unit is violating the law, and a private citizen can sue them, and if the Court finds they did violate the law, which would be easy to find, the Police Dept. would be required to pay the citizens attorney fees, and court costs, and a fine of a minimum of 1,000 dollars a day, and no more than 5,000 a day for each day the police unit continued to operate under the smart police policy (i.e. make arresting serious and dangerous criminals a priority over enforcement of immigration laws against otherwise law abiding citizens), which violate the strict immigration law.
The fact is a police department, or a unit within a department does not have to take “positive action to hinder the enforcement of immigration law” in order to be the subject of a successful lawsuit. A police unit that places the safety of citizens over enforcing the immigration bill is not taking positive action to hinder enforcement.
Comment by Joanne Christian: “….Colorado has decided to charge out-of-state tuition to Colorado high school graduates who have not pursued legal citizenship status or residency, and want to attend a Colorado state school. Arizona doesn’t do that.”
Actually Joanne you’re wrong in 2006 AZ voters passed proposition 300, which not only prohibits an AZ HS graduate, who is not in the US legally, from receiving in-state tuition, but also prohibits their receiving any financial aid. None of the other states that specifically prohibit illegal immigrants, who graduate from a HS in that state, from receiving in-state tuition go as far as AZ and prohibit their receiving any financial aid. AZ, CO, GA, and SC are the only states that have laws specifically prohibiting illegal immigrants who graduate from HS in their state from receiving in-state tuition. Most states have no law addressing the issue. Of the ten states which allow illegal immigrants who graduate from a HS in that state to receive in-state tuition, only New Mexico does not require the student to sign an affidavit promising to apply for citizenship or legal residency in order to be eligible for the in-state tuition.
One of the worst aspects of the AZ law that the media isn’t talking about is it makes it a misdemeanor to hire a day labor (whose illegal) only if in the process of picking the person up to do the work you block or impede traffic. The immigrant would also be charged with a misdemeanor for the blocked traffic, but if the person looking for cheap labor pulled into a parking spot, and did not block or impede traffic they could not be charged with any violation, but the illegal immigrants would be charged with a misdemeanor for violating the law prohibiting him/her from working illegally. A law that punishes the person taking advantage of the illegal immigrant only if they violate a traffic law, but prosecute the illegal immigrant 100% of the time cannot be justified.