Jul 7, 2010

DOJ files lawsuit challenging Arizona's new racist “show-me-your-papers” law


The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finally did the right thing and filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging Arizona's new unconstitutional racist “show-me-your-papers” law.

The lawsuit names Arizona and state Gov. Janice Brewer as the defendants. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government, not the states, the power over immigration, naturalization and deportation. The law is unconstitutional and discriminatory based on violation of federal civil rights laws because it encourages racial profiling, it violates the U.S. Constitutional rights of due process and equal protection rights granted under the Constitution and it violates the Fourth Amendment privacy rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It is clearly unconstitutional, but the problem is the rightwing U.S. Supreme Court.

The simple fact is just as we can’t have 50 different foreign polices, we can’t have 50 different immigration policies. This will turn out to be the worst piece of anti-civil rights legislation since Jim Crow laws.

Other states, including Michigan, are introducing copycat laws; even though many of them, like Michigan, are doing it just for political purposes to play to the fringe extremists that control the Republican Party. The lawsuit will put a stop to the attempt to have 50 different immigration polices.

Supporters of the voter suppression law claim the show-me-your-papers” law is needed because the Obama Administration is not enforcing the law and protecting the borders. Simply not true.

The simple fact is that spending on immigration enforcement has steadily climbed since 2002 and continues to climb under Obama. Spending for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) increased from fiscal year 2002, at almost $7.5 billion, to fiscal year 2010 more than $17 billion.

The majority of law enforcement officers are against the show-me-your-papers” law because it will damage the relationships police have established in their communities and only help increase crime instead of reducing it, according to a story on ABC News. Police Chiefs from cities like Tucson, Salt Lake City, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Philadelphia and San Jose, as well as the Association of Chiefs of Police, are against the law because crimes will simply not be reported and people will no longer cooperate with police.

17 comments:

Angela said...

It isn't racist.

The Arizona law is exactly what the Feds have on their books. Officers aren't allowed to make stops based on skin color.


Keep using that word though, as we here on the right appreciate your continued dilution of the effectiveness of it.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, it is racist because it promotes racial profiling. Officers are allowed to stop suspected illegal aliens. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how you tell.

Thank you; I will continue to point the fact that the law is racist. After all, a fact is a fact.

Not Anonymous said...

Please cite the line and page number where it promotes racial profiling.

Officers are not allowed to stop illegal aliens just because they think they are illegal. They can only stop them for another possible violation. They SHOULD be able to stop them for being an illegal alien. After all, if the person is here illegal, they have broken the law and should be punished for breaking the law.

But the law prohibits them from stopping people just because they "think" they may be illegal.

You're facts are not facts. They are in fact your desire to misstate the law. The fact is that the Arizona law is just shy of being as strict as Federal law which this administration doesn't even try to enforce.

By the way, you're right. They have increased money to the area but the illegal aliens are coming in higher numbers than before. Obama is failing again.

Communications guru said...

Ah that game again, anonymous coward. I would say stop playing dumb, but I know better. The entire bill, anonymous coward. So, a white middle aged man when stopped will not be asked for his papers, but a brown middle aged man will. That’s called racial profiling.

“They SHOULD be able to stop them for being an illegal alien?” First, anonymous coward, they are, and second, what does an illegal alien look like? You know who should be punished too, but won’t? The person who hired him and exploited him at less than minimum wage to make a buck.

My facts are facts; like the fact that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government, not the states, the power over immigration, naturalization and deportation. The law is unconstitutional and discriminatory based on violation of federal civil rights laws because it encourages racial profiling, it violates the U.S. Constitutional rights of due process and equal protection rights granted under the Constitution and it violates the Fourth Amendment privacy rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Or the fact that the majority of law enforcement officers are against the show-me-your-papers” law because it will damage the relationships police have established in their communities and only help increase crime instead of reducing it.

The president is spending more money for border security, there are more border guards and arrests and deportations are up. By the way, anonymous coward, the President has not failed at anything. The only dumb thing he has done has been to try and include Republicans in finding solutions to the problems they created, but you are only interested in seeing him and the country fail so you can regain control of something you hate.

Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.” Are you stupid, can’t read or are you finally admitting you are a liar, anonymous coward?

Not Anonymous said...

As I suspected. You cannot cite the racial profiling you've claimed is in the bill.

Interesting that you talk about employers not being punished. That too is addressed in the bill. You really should read the bill before you make your statements.

President Herbert Hoover, President Harry Truman and President Eisenhower all handled illegal aliens and were successful. What did they do? They rounded up the illegal aliens and started shipping them back.

Eisenhower did it with a very small number of border agents. They had no trouble finding the illegal aliens.

Once again, you have it wrong. Republicans are not hoping for the country to fail. We are wanting Obama to fail because his successes hurt this country. We want the country to succeed and thrive and that only happens when Obama fails.

The majority of law enforcement officers are not in favor of it. Your story says a Chiefs association. It doesn't say Chiefs.

70% of the people in Arizona are in favor of Arizona's bill. 60% of the country is in favor of the bill. Once again, Obama is against the American people on yet another issue.

Communications guru said...

The very nature of the law promotes racial profiling, so stop play dumb anonymous coward. But here it is anyway, “WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.” That’s page 1 para. B.

As for penalty for an employer, I read the bill, and they just took the federal language. Regardless, I guarantee local law enforcement officials are not going to bother an employer.

“They rounded up the illegal aliens and started shipping them back?” That is exactly what President Obama is doing.

Sorry, anonymous coward, not only are Republicans hoping for the country to fail, they are doing their best to see that it happens.

Sorry, anonymous coward, a majority of law enforcement officials are against the racist law. I’m not buying your numbers, and even if you are correct, so what? Wrong is wrong. I’m sure 70 percent of the people in the south were once in favor of Jim Crow, but that didn't make it right, anonymous coward.

Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.” Are you stupid, can’t read or are you finally admitting you are a liar, anonymous coward?

Not Anonymous said...

As I suspected you're paraphrasing the bill. You leave out the portions that don't fit your desire to be against this bill.

Here's section B including the parts you left out:

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

It's interesting that you leave out the portion that says "For any lawful contact". This means that the police must have a reason to stop you. It also says "or agency". So anyone showing up for a drivers license, or even government health care.

It also says "reasonable suspicion". That means more than just skin color. There are many legal aliens from Mexico in Arizona. There are also many people of Mexican descent in Arizona. You're suggesting this law is created to harass them.

By the way, people from both sides admit that there is a serious problem on the border and that the administration is not doing its' job on the border. In fact, you're the only one that I've heard say he's doing his job...well, other than the administration itself, but then they never take responsibility for anything.

Communications guru said...

Bullshit; it’s an exact quote. “WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.” That’s page 1 para. B. It encourages racial profiling. I have no idea what constitutes reasonable suspicion, but that sure gives law enforcement a lot of latitude. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what an illegal alien looks like. The most obvious is the color of their skin, and that is called racial profiling.

Of course people from both sides admit that there is a serious problem on the border, and that’s why the President wants comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, he’s stepped up enforcement. For Republicans to say the federal government is not enforcing immigration law is just one more lie.

More lies. Unlike the past administration, this administration has actually taken responsibility. That’s why the entire world was so happy to see the worst U.S. President – and fifth overall – in the modern era leave. But, I guess if you’re going to tell a lie, anonymous coward, go big.

But I know how much you lie. Speaking of lies; again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.” Are you stupid, can’t read or are you finally admitting you are a liar, anonymous coward? Perhaps all three.

Not Anonymous said...

This is really interesting. There have been eight posts. Not one from the Republican side of the ledger has been berating or even vitriolic. No name calling.

In my three, I quoted the entire section B while you cherry picked what you wanted from section B.

In each of your three posts to me, you've been name calling and never offer anything in the way of documentation to back up your position with the exception of editing paragraph B.

In each of the three posts that I've done, there has been zero name calling. I have presented the facts (the entire section where yours was edited to fit your needs).

In your last post, you said the President wants comprehensive immigration reform. What you fail to mention is that the country is not for comprehensive immigration reform because that title of comprehensive immigration reform means amnesty and the American people are not interested in rewarding people that can't or won't follow the laws of this country becoming citizens of this country.

The fact is that the Arizona law is the same as the Federal law. The fact is that the American law, both Fed and State is not as tough as Mexican law if the roles were reversed.

The fact is that you can't engage in honest debate about a subject that is very prevalent in the news.

I wonder, if the Arizona law is a violation of the Feds authority, why haven't you come out against sanctuary cities that are also a violation of Federal law and authority?

Regarding your constant whining about whether or not we were actually shoulder to shoulder once, perhaps you ought to look back at what I actually said about that. But it is interesting that it bugs you so much that you are showing your frustration at my not responding to it.

I'm curious, are you just copying and pasting or has your wife started calling you stubby after typing the same thing so many times?

Don't sweat that last one. I really don't expect an answer from you and I'm certainly not going to get an honest answer from you.

Communications guru said...

There has been no name calling from me either, anonymous coward. You can post the entire bill, anonymous coward, but the meaning is still the same: it promotes racial profiling.

Again, anonymous coward, there has been no name calling on my part. That’s a good one; you accusing someone else of a lack of documentation.

Again, anonymous coward, there has been no name calling on my part. You have presented your baseless opinion, as usual.

Sorry, wrong again, anonymous coward, the country does want comprehensive immigration reform. I don’t know if it includes amnesty or not, but it may.

The Arizona law is not the same as the federal law. Mexican immigration law is completely irrelevant. Funny, you accusing someone else of not engaging in honest debate. Seriously? You “wonder if the Arizona law is a violation of the Feds authority?” There is no doubt.

Like I said in the post, U.S. Constitution gives the federal government, not the states, the power over immigration. I don’t see where sanctuary cites is a violation of federal law, because it’s the federal government’s job to enforce immigration, not the locals.

Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.” I’m simply not going to allow you to get away with that huge lie.

Of course you’ll get an answer to your last personal smear. Plus, all my answers, as well as my posts, are honest. If you want to hear that answer, I’ll say it when we’re nearly shoulder to shoulder, anonymous coward.

Johnny C said...

I can tell you not I don't care to hear the Republican side of the argument, because it's bullshit. I'm going with the Greg Palast position with the paper please law,it has more to do with the changing politics in that state than preventing illegal aliens from coming in.

The Hispanic minority are becoming the majority in Arizona and that growing minority are trending towards the Democratic Party and few short years Arizona could go from a solid red Republican state to a blue state.

This is racial profiling how can you tell who's here illegally or not? I doubt people would be wearing "I'm here illegally" t-shirts.

Not Anonymous said...

Thank you for proving my point. You socialist Democrats always end up proving my point. I only need wait for you to get pissed off enough. It's just hard knowing when that is because you socialist Democrats come into it pissed.

By the way, it's a Thursday. A work day. Yet, you seem to not be working. More proof that your wifes health care plays second fiddle to your games. More than six hours playing. Even at minimum wage, you could have made over $50 in that time. Shows your priorities are really screwed up.

Communications guru said...

First, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear. Second, what point might that be? It can’t be false name-calling charge. You are an anonymous coward; calling you what you are is not name-calling. Also, what makes you think I’m “pissed?”

Again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear.

Ah, the personal smears. That’s all you got, anonymous coward? Who was that who “can't engage in honest debate about a subject that is very prevalent in the news?”

Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”

Not Anonymous said...

So let's see, reminding of you a fact that you stated about not getting health coverage for your wife is now a personal smear. If you think that not having health coverage for your wife, who is someone you're supposed to care about more than all others, is a smear, but you do nothing about it. Your disdain for people you disagree with is more important for you to display than getting the necessary coverage for your wife. If that's a personal smear, you should not have admitted that you don't care enough to get your wife health coverage.

Again, you're caught in yet another lie. Justifying it by claiming to believe the names you call people does not make it less than name calling. A normal or civil human being would address someone by the name they choose to use whether they choose to use that name for their own personal reason or to protect them from those that like to display personal information about another out in public.

Justify it anyway you choose, it still comes out as a little boy trying to be a bully but one that doesn't have the balls to stand up in person and say the same things face to face.

Funny thing about those trying to be bully's. They thump their chests, but the balls crawl up inside when the offer is accepted.

I've recently been looking back at some of the things that were said before I started coming here. I noticed that someone tried to use pedophilia as an example and you didn't have the brain power to see it for the example it was and instead, took it personally thinking he was calling you a pedophile. You went to extremes in whining about that which can only make me think that thou doeth protest too much.

You're a silly little pussy boy, probably living in your moms basement. It's almost three o'clock. Have you had your macaroni and cheese yet?

Don't you just hate it when someone nails you for what you are and all because you couldn't resist being the snotty little boy that can't wipe his own nose?

Communications guru said...

Anything besides false, personal smears, anonymous coward?

I have never been caught in a lie, anonymous coward, simply because I don’t lie. What you are is an anonymous coward. That’s a simple fact. Are you denying it?

Well, if I’m a “ silly little pussy boy” say it to my face. I’m using my real name and not hiding behind an anonymous name like you, anonymous coward. That just proves you are an anonymous coward.

Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”

Not Anonymous said...

Oh man, you are really a dolt. I would think that you'd have caught the hint of when were nearly shoulder to shoulder.

My exact words were "pussy boy" when we were standing within three feet of each other and you took two steps back away from me. I said that you after you made a very stupid comment. Now that part, I can understand you not remembering because your comments are all in that vein.

So you see, it was said to your face.

You can spend the rest of your time denying it, but you and I know the truth. I will give you credit though. You didn't break down and cry. I really expected that.

You've met one other person as well. I talked to him and he told me about your meeting with him after he questioned me about seeing you in Lansing.

Quite a reputation you have there.

Communications guru said...

Wow. What a fairy tale. It simply never happened.

All I can say is my real name is on my blog, and you can simply look me up in anywho.com, but you're just an anonymous coward.