Police divided over Arizona law.

[CCTAU]

Huge gap between officers on this law. I mean two are suing and one police chief is upset. HUGE GAP.

Ariz. immigration law divides police across US


By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Mon May 17, 7:17 pm ET

PHOENIX – Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration is dividing police across the nation, pitting officers against their chiefs and raising questions about its potential to damage efforts to fight crime in Hispanic communities.

Two officers are challenging the law in court, while police unions that lobbied for it are defending it against criticism from police officials.

Both sides are debating how a law such as Arizona's can be enforced, without leading to racial profiling of Hispanics and without alienating residents in Hispanic neighborhoods with whom police have spent years trying to build trust.

"Before the signing of this bill, citizens would wave at me," said David Salgado, a 19-year Phoenix police officer who sued the city and the governor asking that the law be blocked. "Now they don't even want to make eye contact."

Still, police unions say, many of their officers in Arizona, the nation's busiest corridor for illegal immigration and smuggling, are tired of feeling helpless when dealing with people they believe are in the country illegally. Those officers want a tool to arrest them.

"Crime is not based upon skin color, it's based upon conduct," said Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the union representing Phoenix officers that lobbied aggressively for the law.

It requires police enforcing another law to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable" suspicion they are in the U.S. illegally.

Several Arizona police chiefs and sheriffs say, as hard as officers try not to profile, enforcing the law will inevitably lead to it. They say it will end up taking time away from solving crimes in their cities and towns.

"When you get a law that leads a state down this path, where the enforcement is targeted to a particular segment of the population, it's very difficult not to profile," said Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, a critic of the law.

On Monday, police bosses from Maryland and Nevada condemned the law, saying that it could suck up vital resources and destroy delicate relationships with immigrant communities if implemented in their own states. There are at least nine other states considering similar legislation.

Police Chief Thomas Manger of Montgomery County, Md., in suburban Washington said he doesn't have the resources or the desire to enforce federal immigration violations by people who aren't disrupting the community.

"If they're not committing a crime here, frankly, I'm not sure how it enhances public safety to target those people for removal," he said.

Manger spoke on a conference call with the sheriff of Washoe County, Nev., and the retired police chief of Sacramento, Calif. The call was organized by the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, which advocates immigration reform.

Their criticism added to the chorus of opponents since the law's adoption April 23. There have been calls for boycotts, and some state and local governments have decided to stop doing business with the state in protest.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the latest challenge to the law in federal court on behalf of labor unions and others.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by the pending court challenges. Being in the country illegally would become a state crime, and Arizona residents could sue an agency or officer they feel isn't enforcing immigration laws to the fullest extent possible.

Arizona's legislation was passed in part with the lobbying muscle of the unions. An association of police chiefs tried to defeat or soften it.

Tucson police officer Martin Escobar also filed a lawsuit, arguing there's no "race-neutral" criteria for him to suspect that someone's in the country illegally. Some say it would be impossible to enforce without relying on indicators such as skin color, clothing and accent.

They worry Hispanic crime victims will be too scared to call for help, or eyewitnesses will refuse to cooperate in murder investigations.

Supporters say there are plenty of indicators other than race that suggest someone is an illegal immigrant, including a lack of identification and conflicting statements. They say police have plenty of experience enforcing laws without relying on physical characteristics.

If officers are empowered to decide when it's appropriate to arrest or even to kill someone, they should be trusted not to profile based on race, said Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a supporter whose jurisdiction includes busy human and drug smuggling routes into Phoenix.

"We will do it without profiling," he said. "And any police chief or any sheriff in Arizona will not tolerate profiling based on race or national origin. That's unacceptable."

Gov. Jan Brewer insists racial profiling will not be tolerated. When she signed the bill, Brewer ordered the state's police training and licensing board to develop standards for enforcement that avoid profiling.

The board will meet Wednesday to adopt a framework for the training program, which director Lyle Mann said would include digital instruction materials for all of Arizona's 15,000 police officers.

Designing a training courses that prevents officers from using "the shortcut of race" will be difficult, said Jack McDevitt, associate dean of criminal justice at Northeastern University who studies racial profiling.

"No training you give police officers is going to change all of the officer's behavior," McDevitt said. "Unfortunately, the shortcut will be: 'What does this person look like? What kind of accent does he have? And what kind of car is he driving?'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_cops_divided

From what it sounds like, the officers on the street actually doing the job are the ones that like the new law (and fought for it). A few grand-standers and the political higher ups are the only ones in law enforcement that are upset.

[JR4AU]

Huge gap between officers on this law. I mean two are suing and one police chief is upset. HUGE GAP.


From what it sounds like, the officers on the street actually doing the job are the ones that like the new law (and fought for it). A few grand-standers and the political higher ups are the only ones in law enforcement that are upset.

I would say that as a general rule that any law that gives your avg street cop a "reason" to stop someone, especially when he only needs suspicion they're "illegal", will find support among the guys on the street.

[CCTAU]

I would say that as a general rule that any law that gives your avg street cop a "reason" to stop someone, especially when he only needs suspicion they're "illegal", will find support among the guys on the street.

Yes. And more right to carry gun laws are gonna cause crime to go up. The officers did not want the right to just stop anyone and inquire of their legal status. They wanted to have the right to just ask if they are legal. There was such a fear of being sued, that many districts would not even allow the officer to ASK for legality of residence. Guys were in jail for murder and rape and no one was allowed to ask if they were legal. This law gives the officers the right to inquire legal status without getting accused of JUST harassing.
I don't think we'll see the abuse that folks are scared of. But I do think we'll see an increase in illegal alien arrests. And we should. If a person is legally in this country, then that person has no reason to be scared. If you are a law abiding citizen doing good things for the community, then you should not have to worry. If you break the law, then expect to show ID. If you are in the area of a police presence, then expect to show ID. I do this already and I am as legal as they come.

The fear of high speed police chases and home storm trooping "just because the guy was brown", will not come to pass.

[GarMan]

I would say that as a general rule that any law that gives your avg street cop a "reason" to stop someone, especially when he only needs suspicion they're "illegal", will find support among the guys on the street. 

The new Arizona law doesn't do that.  You and others are arguing against something that does not exist.  I'll try this again, since it was brought up again...

1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
 
2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does not already place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?

[GarMan]

The new Arizona law doesn't do that.  You and others are arguing against something that does not exist.  I'll try this again, since it was brought up again...

1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
 
2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does not already place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States? 

With all of the pontificating by some of our resident local legal professionals against the new Arizona immigration law, I haven't seen any responses to the above two questions.  In fact, these questions seem to be thread killers.  What’s the deal?   

[CCTAU]

With all of the pontificating by some of our resident local legal professionals against the new Arizona immigration law, I haven't seen any responses to the above two questions.  In fact, these questions seem to be thread killers.  What’s the deal?   

The answers are harder to chase down than a speeding bambalance?

[GH2001]

The fear of high speed police chases and home storm trooping "just because the guy was brown", will not come to pass.

Yes, but you know as good as me CCT that this is what they have to peddle to the masses (their constituents). A convenient untruth. Its what they want to HEAR, not what is so.

[JR4AU]

The new Arizona law doesn't do that.  You and others are arguing against something that does not exist.  I'll try this again, since it was brought up again...

1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?   That's kind of one of the major points...it's Federal Jurisdiction.

2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does not already place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?

  See answer to #1

[GarMan]

  See answer to #1 

I think that's an argument, but that's not the answer.  Arizona and others are tired of waiting for the Federal Gubm'et.  They took action. 

[CCTAU]

I think that's an argument, but that's not the answer.  Arizona and others are tired of waiting for the Federal Gubm'et.  They took action. 

And I do not think the Arizona law supercedes federal. It coincides with it does it not?

[JR4AU]

And I do not think the Arizona law supercedes federal. It coincides with it does it not?

It can't supercede it, and in some areas, it's solely within the jurisdiction of the Fed. Government. Immigration is one such area, or that's one major argument. 

[CCTAU]

It can't supercede it, and in some areas, it's solely within the jurisdiction of the Fed. Government. Immigration is one such area, or that's one major argument. 

So there really is no issue here? Arizona is not making up laws to counteract federal law, so within state's rights, they are perfectly legal.

[JR4AU]

So there really is no issue here? Arizona is not making up laws to counteract federal law, so within state's rights, they are perfectly legal.

Um, if that's what you took from what I wrote...

[GarMan]

It continues... 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051702175.html

Memo from 2002 could complicate challenge of Arizona immigration law
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 18, 2010

In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.

The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The author of the Arizona law -- which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials -- has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) last month, makes the "willful failure" to carry immigration documents a crime and empowers police to question anyone if authorities have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal immigrant. It has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and intense opposition from civil rights groups, who on Monday filed what they said was the fifth federal lawsuit over the legislation.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said the department is considering a lawsuit against Arizona, and Civil Rights Division lawyers have been studying the law and consulting with some civil rights groups.

"The Civil Rights Division has been working around the clock," said one outside lawyer who has spoken to Justice Department officials. The lawyer spoke on the condition of anonymity because the contacts are not public. "They have a lot of attorneys on it, and they're taking a really hard look at filing their own lawsuit or intervening." Justice Department officials declined to comment Monday beyond saying they are continuing to review the government's legal options.

The 2002 opinion, known as the "inherent authority" memo, reversed a 1996 Office of Legal Counsel opinion from the Clinton administration. "This Office's 1996 advice that federal law precludes state police from arresting aliens on the basis of civil deportability was mistaken," says the 2002 memo, which was released publicly in redacted form in 2005 after civil rights groups sued to obtain it.

Office of Legal Counsel documents do not have the force of law but carry great weight within the executive branch and are considered to be the Justice Department's official position on a legal or constitutional issue.

Cecillia Wang, managing attorney of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project -- which filed Monday's lawsuit in federal court in Phoenix along with the NAACP, the National Immigration Law Center and other groups -- said the 2002 memo would not present an obstacle to a Justice Department lawsuit. She said the power that the Arizona law gives to police "goes far beyond" the basic arrest authority cited in the memo.

But Wang renewed the ACLU's call for the Obama Justice Department to withdraw the 2002 memo, which she called legally incorrect. "The fact that this memo is lurking out there gives cover and comfort to people in Arizona and other states who want to pass these overbroad and extraordinary anti-immigration measures," she said.

[CCTAU]

Miss Wang is dedicated to beating it.

[JR4AU]

It continues... 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051702175.html

The article touches on one of the major problems with the AZ law, namely that it's not a violation of any criminal statute to be in the country without permission from immigration authorities. 

[GarMan]

The article touches on one of the major problems with the AZ law, namely that it's not a violation of any criminal statute to be in the country without permission from immigration authorities. 

Where do you get that? 

There are an awful lot of signs across our northern and southern borders that clearly state, "If you are entering the United States without presenting yourself to an Immigration Officer, YOU MAY BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED for violating U.S. Immigration and Customs Laws."  Are they lying? 

[JR4AU]

Where do you get that?  

There are an awful lot of signs across our northern and southern borders that clearly state, "If you are entering the United States without presenting yourself to an Immigration Officer, YOU MAY BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED for violating U.S. Immigration and Customs Laws."  Are they lying?  

Illegal ENTRY is a violation of the Federal Criminal Code.  If they catch you in the act of entering illegally, they can prosecute you.  Usually they simply elect to deny entry/deport.  

[Token]

Illegal ENTRY is a violation of the Federal Criminal Code.  If they catch you in the act of entering illegally, they can prosecute you.  Usually they simply elect to simply deny entry/deport. 

I can't provide a link, but from first hand knowledge...a juvenile was deported to Nicaragua last week because he committed a drug crime.  ICE told him they could prosecute him on the charge and keep him in prison for a number of years, or he could sign a waiver to deport.  He chose to be deported. 

Immigration would much rather deport than prosecute.  Our correctional facilities are already overcrowded and over their budget. 

The state of Arizona can't possibly take on the task.  They aren't equipped.  They don't have the man-power.  They don't have the state funds to house or prosecute illegals.  They are simply making a lot of noise, hoping to pressure ICE into changing their policies.  If the tax payer knew how much money was wasted every day by ICE, there would be an outcry to shut it down.  Immediately.   If we were to seriously get a handle on illegal immigration through deportation, we should have acted 20 years ago. Deporting every illegal we come across isn't the answer. 

[JR4AU]

I can't provide a link, but from first hand knowledge...a juvenile was deported to Nicaragua last week because he committed a drug crime.  ICE told him they could prosecute him on the charge and keep him in prison for a number of years, or he could sign a waiver to deport.  He chose to be deported.  

Immigration would much rather deport than prosecute.  Our correctional facilities are already overcrowded and over their budget.  

The state of Arizona can't possibly take on the task.  They aren't equipped.  They don't have the man-power.  They don't have the state funds to house or prosecute illegals.  They are simply making a lot of noise, hoping to pressure ICE into changing their policies.  If the tax payer knew how much money was wasted every day by ICE, there would be an outcry to shut it down.  Immediately.   If we were to seriously get a handle on illegal immigration through deportation, we should have acted 20 years ago. Deporting every illegal we come across isn't the answer.  

Yep!  Unless it's murder, rape, or some crime against a person, they'll usually deport.  Costs a helluva lot less.