Roy - I think item #1 is MISLEADING. The law states that a law enforcement officer may ask a person about their citizenship 'during a lawful stop'. You added 'i.e. traffic stop' to that line.

A 'lawful stop' is not limited to a 'traffic stop'. A lawful stop may be a law enforcement officer asking someone on the street where they are going if the officer deems it necessary. It is misleading to think that a traffic stop is the ONLY lawful stop a law enforcement officer may make.

Secondly, the DOJ's lawsuit is not about whose law is tougher or not, it is to state that Arizona CANNOT make laws that give them Federal Powers to enforce Federal laws. AZ does NOT have the power to enforce Federal laws, and cannot give itself Federal powers to enable their law enforcement officers to enforce Federal law.

I personally wish the DOJ would drop their lawsuit and let AZ run itself into the ground due to 'unforseen circumstances', but then other states would make up their own immigration laws and this will NOT be allowed to happen.

I think that this AZ law will NOT withstand the Constitutional 'States Rights' issue, but the judge may allow this law to be enacted in a more limited capacity.

I know that's how it's SUPPOSED to be, but you and I both know that laws are meant to be broken. Why is everyone so interested in this law? I say that Arizona should just do the thing correctly. Apparently it's not on the up and up - or else the president would not have made a move against it. With all the s#!t the president gets thrown at him daily - he wouldn't dare make a move that would be unconstitutional against Arizona. You righties would LOVE to crucify him for that one. I don't really care about the law - what I care about is - why now? Is this Brewer's first term? Why not with Bush? I'm really just throwing that out there - I know why. I was looking at an old episode of something from the 70's on the Sleuth channel. Man's inhumanity to man. If it were not for the outfits, I'd think it was 2010. Same ole s#!t - different day.

Of course it will be a political decision, thats the way the liberal courts work today. They operate under the guise of the justice system, with their liberal aggenda leading the way and laws they make up along the way, as long as it fulfill their needs within the liberal party guide lines.

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio

My use of ie; was intended to be an "example". Perhaps eg; would have been more technically correct.

As to your comment "the DOJ's lawsuit is not about whose law is tougher or not, it is to state that Arizona CANNOT make laws that give them Federal Powers to enforce Federal laws." I think you are incorrect.

Federal Appeals Courts have already decided that State and Local police officers can enforce Federal immigration laws, but only if the State has expressly permitted it. There are several instances where illegal criminals have contested local enforcement of Federal immigration laws, claiming only Federal law enforcement officials could enforce those laws - In each cae, the criminals lost.

Roy Wilson, have you read the Royer decision? You correctly cited where to find the Royer decision, but the decision is not only not as broad as you claim. It was a 5-4 decision with Blackmun, Rehnquist, Burger and O'Connor dissented.

Narcotic cops in Miami noticed a suspicious man who they thought was a drug courier. There is nothing in the case to indicate he wasn't a citizen. They approached him and asked him a few questions, everyone on the Court except Brennan were ok with the police asking him a couple preliminary questions. After they discovered his name on his license and ticket didn't match, they kept his license and plane ticket and had Royer go to a room for questioning. His luggage did contain drugs and he was arrested. Royer sought to suppress the drugs, claiming that he was unlawfully detained, and the majority of the US Supreme Court agreed that the police questioning him in the room, while they held his license and plane ticket amounted to an arrest, and the evidence of the drugs in Royer's suitcase should have been suppressed.

No where in Royer does the US Supreme Court (even the dissent) say that "a police officer may stop and inquire into any one's immigration status for any reason, and no "Reasonable Suspicion" rule is needed." The word "immigrant" or "immigration" is not even mentioned in the opinion, the case is about a US citizen believed to be smuggling drugs from Miami to NY.

Federal law does not allow law enforcenment personal to uinquire about immigration status without probably cause. I have read the AZ law it requires law enforcement to check immigration status if the officer believes the person is an illegal immigrant.

The US Supreme Court in finding a roving immigration stop (as opposed to a road clock where every vehicle is stopped) is unconstitutional, said the following:

"To approve roving-patrol stops of all vehicles in the border area, without any suspicion that a particular vehicle is carrying illegal immigrants, would subject the residents of these and other areas to potentially unlimited interference with their use of the highways, solely at the discretion of Border Patrol officers.... [I]f we approved the Government's position in this case, Border Patrol officers could stop motorists at random for questioning, day or night, anywhere within 100 miles of the 2,000-mile border, on a city street, a busy highway, or a desert road, without any reason to suspect that they have violated the law.” US v. Brignoni-Ponce 422 US 873

Under AZ the officer does not have to stop the person for a traffic stop, the law was changed to include the requirement that the officer believes the person violated some law or regulation. As written if a person violated a local ordinance (tall grass, too many vehicles in the driveway, etc) that gives the officer probable cause. Also the officer is required to inquire about the immigration status if a person has violated a law or municiple code/regulation, and if the officer fails to make the immigration inquiry the officer can be sued!

Roy - on your first point, I was remiss in saying that the example was the ONLY way a stop could be made. I apologise - my point was to say that a 'lawful stop' could be ANY stop by a law enforcement officer for any reason. I was not intending to pick on your choice of what that lawful stop COULD be.

I am petty, but not THAT petty. Your characterization was correct on the first point.

Secondly, I think that my second point stands - Arizona CANNOT give itself Federal Powers to enforce Federal laws. However, I agree that if the Federal Government BESTOWS the power to enforce immigration laws on Local Law enforcement, then yes, the local Law Enforcement CAN enforce immigration law as an AGENT of the Federal Government.

If this was the case in Arizona, I do NOT think the DOJ would have filed suit; I am thinking that AZ took it upon itself to enforce immigration law WITHOUT the 'blessing' of the Federal Government. That would explain why Gov. Brewer had to make a trip to the White House to see the President personally.

Again, since AZ seems to have acted alone in bestowing itself Federal powers, I think that AZ will lose this round UNLESS the judge has the Federal Government bestow the power to enforce immigration law on AZ LEOs. Personally, I wish the Feds would, so that we can see - up close and personal - all of the 'unintended consequences' of this law in action.

Roy-

What state is "enforcing" federal law? They aren't, that is false, just as your citation to Royer was false. Local law enforcement can arrest an illegal immigrant for crimes and they can contact INS regarding a person's illegal status, but they can't enforce the federal law, the federal immigration law is specific, and is not enforced by any state. You are confusing arresting someone for their illegal status, and contacting the INS to handle the situation, with full enforcement.

what is the legal standard for reasonable? though reasonable is judgement which can change. That is why i don't like this law just cuz of that part

What part of the constitution is Brewer not upholding?

If illegals are "jumping over the fence," then maybe the law is needed and is not dumb.

Thats right bev, they ARE jumping the fence, comming to a town near you, I HOPE.

Yeah but when she was signing the law, they were jumping the fence back to Mexico to avoid being arrested....

Beverly, roughly 40% of Cook County Hospital is illegal on any given day of the year. Can we start to send you their bills instead?

w bush - MAYBE the Justice Department SHOULD be sued for gross negligence for refusing immigration law. I can support that position. However, the DOJ is NOT going to let the State of AZ give itself Federal Powers to enforce immigration law. I believe that the DOJ will win this round.

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio

w bush - MAYBE the Justice Department SHOULD be sued for gross negligence for refusing immigration law. I can support that position. However, the DOJ is NOT going to let the State of AZ give itself Federal Powers to enforce immigration law. I believe that the DOJ will win this round

Win?! Win what? That states are powerless in defending themselves from illegals?

In effect, the state of AZ is suing the federal government for non-enforcement of immigration laws. Once the Judge Bolton sides with AZ, dozens of other states are ready to go with their laws that are similar to what AZ has put together. The only choice the DOJ has at that point is to put a single plan together that not only unifies the states law, but is actually enforce the laws. A good test case to prove the DOJs interest in enforcing illegal immigration laws will be to see what the feds to with all these so-called "sanctuary" cities.

To those that say AZ cannot give itself powers to enforce federal law; each and every state enforces federal law on behalf of the federal government every day. There are even some cities, and states that open defy federal law. So why is such a big deal being made of a state doing the right thing and nothing is being done to the cities and states that are breaking the law?

Tamy - its because AZ cannot give itself Federal Powers to enforce Federal Laws. It looks like in this case that AZ decided for itself to give itself Federal Powers to enforce Federal immigration law, and this is why I think that the DOJ filed suit.

All of those that support the bill, have you read the bill? If you have explain this to me. Why is it illegal in Arizona for someone to hire a day labor only if they block traffic in picking up the day labor, but the illegal immigrant commits a crime if traffic is blocked (even though he/she didn't drive the vehicle), and by working given their illegal status. If a US citizen blocks traffic while picking up Illegal immigrants at Home Depot, he commits a crime, because he blocked traffic, but the illegal also commits the blocking traffic crime, but also a separate crime of working illegally. If the US citizen doesn't block traffic when he picks up illegals to go work for him, he has committed no crime, and assuming the illegal immigrant doesn't block traffic making his way to the vehicle he still commits a crime for working illegally.

The AZ law on its face doesn't hold the guy who wants cheap labor to build his deck or cut his lawn responsible for encouraging illegal workers in his community. Until people who hire illegal workers are punished with large fines, and the prospect of incarceration the cycle will continue. Given people who knowingly hire illegal workers aren't punished equally for their actions, the Arizona law can't be defended.

All of you who keep saying that state's enforce federal law all the time, that simply isn't true. Saying it, or repeating what a right wing pundit says doesn't make it true!

Well, it's because they've already passed a law that makes it a crime to hire an illegal. They passed it a few years ago. The provision you speak of was added to address the very specific problem of traffic being blocked on city streets in from of a Home Depot or Lowe's. Many cities here in CA have passed similar laws. Always seemed silly to me, as it is alreay a crime to impead the flow of traffic...guess they just wanted to make it a more serious offense.

hawkeyedemocrat
All of you who keep saying that state's enforce federal law all the time, that simply isn't true. Saying it, or repeating what a right wing pundit says doesn't make it true!

If it is not true then tell me who enforces the Brady Law in your state? Who enforces the any and all Federal laws that say your can't drink alcoholic beverages if you are under 21? I can go but I might fry your brain trying to figure out how the feds don't enforce these - the do give support especially when it is something very large - but local & state officials enforce these federal laws. If they don't they will loose federal funding.

Saying something isn't so when it can be proven so easily that it is shows your foolish ignorance.

"People who look Hispanic"? Did you know that there are blond hair, blue & green eyes, fair shinned Hispanics? If not you need to educate yourself. Not all Hispanics are Mexican, and not all Mexicans are Spanish and Indian mix. Not all people crossing the boarder are Mexican. With that being said, who is the racist here the person who know that white, brown, and black alike will be subject to this law or those of you who only think that those with dark hair, brown eyes, and brown skin?

I agree Tamy but disagree. Yes there are fair skinned blonde hair blue eyed hispanics and in my experience they are usually from SPAIN. However what people are referring to when they say the PC term, hispanic, is perhaps latino? Of course there are fair skinned people born in Latin American countries as well yes? I would say people are not necessarily uneducated when they make an attempt to be PC or sensitive.

That is one of many problems with generalizing large swaths of the world population. What is the PC term for ethnic groups that were born in Mexico and those not born in Mexico who are attempting to enter the US illegally?

Should Ramboet have said "And by the way, this new AZ law does nothing regarding the border. All it does, is harass people who look Mexican-born or non-mexican born and of non-naturalized american citizen decent. And to get harassed they don't have to commit a crime."

To call a Mexican a Mexican is in no way insensitive or unPC it is their nationality just as I am an American. Regardless of people trying to make this just about Mexicans that are criminals by virtue of entering this country illegally they have not taken time to see how many people from countries that want to destroy the US are also entering. The law applies to everyone regardless of nationality.

Should Ramboet have said "And by the way, this new AZ law does nothing regarding the border. All it does, is harass people who look Mexican-born or non-Mexican born and of non-naturalized American citizen decent. And to get harassed they don't have to commit a crime."

The law specifically says that they must check the immigration status if when making a legal stop - that includes buying beer and being underage, speeding, ect. I would like to know how many of you have ever been stopped for speeding or any other traffic violation - did you not have to produce drivers license and registration? If anyone on here has ever been involved in a drunk and disorderly do you not at some point have to show id?

And make no mistake I consider each and every person that enters this country without going through the proper channel a criminal. And if you want to know why it is do to the amount of time and money that so many that have followed the rules have to go through. And those that enter legally must pledge that they or their family will every take public assistance. These criminals that so many try to defend each day are sucking this country dry with the entitlement attitude.

Not gonna happen Adler. This Obama administration wants the mexican vote and will do anything to get it. It is the only way he can win the next election. The hipocrites want to pick which federal laws it wants to enforce and not. And, if they are so concerned about the fed laws,, why are they not enforcing the laws in the cities that do not enforce the immigration laws?

joanna, What liberally twisted news service do you get your news from? I live in a border state, and this adminisrtation has only emboldened the illegals and encouraged more to come here before some stupid liberal gives them amnesty. Please put the kool aid down. By the way please stick to current events, Bush hasn't been in office for a while now.

Beverly, you just admitted that you do not know what's in the Arizona law.

Kinda like the Obama healthcare disaster? Or, as queen nancy said, "we have to pass it so we can see whats in it!" Unbelieveable! What a bunch of hipocrites.

Once I was tailed for 2 miles by a STATE TROOPER, pulled over and asked "Were you swerving because you have been drinking, or because you were watching me in your rearview mirror?"

Sounds like a fair question to me..... If you were watching the cop, you obviously weren't watching where you were going.... Maybe to him you appeared to be under the influence... But of course it's the cops fault that you couldn't stay in you lane.....

Brutus, how many lifetime "lawful" or traffic stops have you had during your driving career? If you have never been a victim of profiling then you have no sympathy for me and i understand that. I know for a fact I didnt veer out of my lane. Perhaps I was drifting within my lane. To make a long story short, they wanted to search me and i said no. They searched me anyway and then let me go. Ahhhh freedom.