Obama can’t stop talking about Arizona law that DOJ hasn’t reviewed yet

posted at 9:00 pm on April 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

Oh, there’s no doubt that the DOJ will challenge the law — the politics demands it, which is one reason why Holder expressed his concern today — but wouldn’t it be keen if the country’s chief law enforcement officer held off on prejudicing public opinion about it until the review is done? In theory (albeit not in political reality), Holder could come back and say that the law is constitutional, which would leave The One … where? Shrugging it off after all but pronouncing it a tool for racial profiling today?

In fact, I don’t think this is even factually correct:

The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

One of the open questions about the statute is whether it lets cops detain people solely because they’re suspected of being here illegally or whether some independent suspicion of criminal activity has to exist first, at which point the issue of illegal status can be raised. The lawyer who e-mailed me the other day thinks the “lawful contact” provision means that independent suspicion is required; Byron York reads the statute the same way. Assuming that reading is correct, then no, cops can’t pull you aside if you’re on your way to get ice cream with your kid just because they think you might be illegal. Or at least, they can’t do so lawfully: If they abuse their power then the state will pay, both literally and figuratively. And given the publicity this thing is getting, there’ll be no shortage of lawyers eager to make them do so.

I have no problem with lefties — or righties — noting the potential problems in the bill, but given the hysteria swirling around it and the size of Obama’s megaphone, a little bit of that “first-class temperament” we’ve heard so much about would have gone a long way here. Nothing fancy required; a simple “let me hold off on commenting until the Department of Justice weighs in” would have been dandy. But then, now that we’re in midterms mode, The One needs enemies to beat on. How nice that Arizona could help him out. Skip ahead to 4:40 for the relevant clip.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Obama’s trying out his Jeremiah Wright routine.

Cybergeezer on April 27, 2010 at 9:02 PM

I like ice cream.

Fletch54 on April 27, 2010 at 9:02 PM


Obama can’t stop talking about Arizona law that DOJ hasn’t reviewed yet

FIFY.

The War Planner on April 27, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Well, first of all, I don’t have all the facts, but let me just say that Arizona acted stupidly.

sammypants on April 27, 2010 at 9:03 PM

I was just about to have some ice cream. Then again, I’m legal.

JammieWearingFool on April 27, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Well, first of all, I don’t have all the facts, but let me just say that Arizona acted stupidly.

sammypants on April 27, 2010 at 9:03 PM

..stole my thunder. Wonder if he is going to invite representatives of both sides of this issue to the WH for an ice cream social?

The War Planner on April 27, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Obama really has a hard on for predetermining court rulings, doesn’t he?

lorien1973 on April 27, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Why can’t this guy do any of the jobs the Constitution requires but is constantly in the middle of stuff that is none of his business. AND STAY OFF THE TELEVISION!

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM

I wonder if the law professor ever took the time to compare the Arizona law with the Federal law on illegal immigration. They are virtually identical!! The only difference is that Arizona is actually going to ENFORCE the law.

All aliens in the US are required by law to carry their visas and proof of identificaion. This has been a law since the 1940′s. We are all supposed to carry our licenses (or state ID cards) all the time. You can’t buy beer, cigarettes or even plane tickets without it. This is not discriminatory, but will possibly be quite effective in dealing with a problem Washington (both R’s and D’s) have done nothing about. They are too busy playing politics.

Dr.Gills on April 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Barracky boy is good at singling out his enemies; He should tell Jan Brewer he’s got her in his sights, and he’ll send his ‘hit squad’ after her.

Cybergeezer on April 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Obama wears Depends™

Pass it on.

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM

I would not be entirely surprised if he gets most of his information on legislation from the Huffington Post, like so many other lefties.

David Shane on April 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Hey Barry Sotero, you Kenyan ursurper, Pat Buchanan had it exactly right. Your oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution and the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You dim-witted boob … if we don’t have borders we don’t have a country!

What is it about ILLEGAL you don’t get?

bannedbyhuffpo on April 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM

The Woodstock Admin strikes again …

wheels on April 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Obama can’t control himself. He is unhinged!! (by liberal standards)

portlandon on April 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM

I think someone’s angling for another beer summit. Those things solve anything.

rihar on April 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Obama is acting stupidly.

trs on April 27, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Obama is going to have a Cerveza Summit.

portlandon on April 27, 2010 at 9:08 PM

I’m going to out on a limb and suggest this tool hasn’t read the bill yet.

JammieWearingFool on April 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Damn, AP, you read my mind–gots me a bowl full of ice cream here.

Anyhoo, I see the AZ law less as an infringment on civil liberties and more as a cry of “help, do your job fed govt and protect the border”. One way or another, this illegal immigration thing has got to be reconciled. This is only a small link in the chain to that–albeit a late one.

Giving the gov’t more power (and the president is right on this one) does invite abuse—be it a police officer, a Treasury secretary, or even the AG himself. So, all of a sudden the president is shy about giving the government power? So, we can’t check them for their papers but we sure as hell can check and see if they’s got health coverage or not? WTFO

ted c on April 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Obama really has a hard on for predetermining court rulings, doesn’t he?

lorien1973 on April 27, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Supposedly he went to college or something.

Colorado Anne on April 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Has the law professor explained how the new Arizona law relates to Terry v. Ohio (1968), upheld by the Warren Court no less?

Kalapana on April 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM

I’m going to out on a limb and suggest this tool hasn’t read the any bill yet.

JammieWearingFool on April 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Obama really has a hard on for predetermining court rulings, doesn’t he?

lorien1973 on April 27, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Well he IS a constipational scholar after all.

Patrick S on April 27, 2010 at 9:10 PM

If Sheriff Joe gets a beer summit and throws his spurred boots up on Obama’s table and tells him to pull him a frosty one, I’ll eat my friggin hat….er…wait. maybe not.
/jetboy

ted c on April 27, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Be on the lookout for news of a large group of refugees being killed MYSTERIOUSLY!
Just like the MYSTERIOUS explosion of an oil platform shortly after permitting MORE offshore drilling.
Hey: It’s how they do things in Chicago.

Cybergeezer on April 27, 2010 at 9:11 PM

I don’t think our esteemed president can even roll out of bed in the morning before telling his first couple/three lies.

Edouard on April 27, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Be on the lookout for news of a large group of refugees being killed MYSTERIOUSLY!
Just like the MYSTERIOUS explosion of an oil platform shortly after permitting MORE offshore drilling.
Hey: It’s how they do things in Chicago.

Cybergeezer on April 27, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Speaking of which, nothing like one fluke in how many years to put the cabosh on off-shore drilling for God knows how long. And yes, the whole thing sounds kind of fishy, doesn’t it?

Colorado Anne on April 27, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Perhaps Barry is a Kenyan constitutional scholar.

txag92 on April 27, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Muy loco

Philly on April 27, 2010 at 9:17 PM

I hope nobody harasses this man enjoying ice cream without his paper.

Or this guy (dork alert).

Or this one.

This one looks very, um, teh ghey.

JammieWearingFool on April 27, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Obama can’t stop talking about Arizona law that DOJ hasn’t reviewed yet

Isn’t that called prejudice? Yes it is.

Since Obama is guilty of Dereliction of Duty, more like outright Desecration of Duty, the people of Arizona are saying: lead us [properly], follow us, or get the Hell out of our way, you Indonesian Imbecile!

May a thousand fleas come up across the Mexican border and infest Obama’s nose.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Good thing there are no foreign problems to deal with, like whether Wackmadinajob likes ice cream with his yellow cake.

TugboatPhil on April 27, 2010 at 9:18 PM

But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

But now, suddenly, if I make a personal decision not to buy Government- approved health insurance and I break my ankle while walking to get ice cream, I’m going to be harassed by the Government and forced to pay a fine. That’s something that most definitely will happen.

redwhiteblue on April 27, 2010 at 9:19 PM

I was just about to have some ice cream. Then again, I’m legal.

JammieWearingFool on April 27, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Well, you are braver than I am Jammie. After seeing that clip, I am terrified to go for ice cream.

Come to think about it, why is the president trying to keep people away from Ice Cream shops? Does Michelle have anything to do with this?

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:19 PM

redwhiteblue on April 27, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Racist /

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:20 PM

His “first class” temperament is first on the demogogue scale: petty and viscous.

INC on April 27, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Oh, there’s no doubt that the DOJ will challenge the law — the politics demands it,

Annnnnnnnddd it’s probably unconstitutional.

There’s that too.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed

Ah, the obligatory “let me see your papers” SS allusion.

ThePrez on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I hope nobody harasses this man enjoying ice cream without his paper.

Or this guy (dork alert).

Or this one.

This one looks very, um, teh ghey.

JammieWearingFool on April 27, 2010 at 9:18 PM


Explained by this.

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Every country in the world has the right, and Mexico itself certainly exercises that right, to control who comes into their country, except the United States.

Barack Obama, at war with his own country.

May a thousand fleas come up across the Mexican border and infest Obama’s nose, and breed.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:22 PM

Hey! Get serious here. This is coming from a “professor of law”, and we all know he’s primed and ready for the Supreme Court, so just lighten up, y’all. This guy knows his shiite.

Besides, he has to keep dropping hints, otherwise Holder won’t know what the Hell to do!

GoldenEagle4444 on April 27, 2010 at 9:22 PM

First you have to carry papers, then come the “H”‘s (Hispanic) stitched to clothing and before long we’ll have special camps for illegals…..or so lefty’s would have us believe.

There are in fact special cards that a police officer can ask for on demand…your driver’s license. Oh noes, you guys! We’ve been oppressed for decades and only now realizing it!!!1!!!

Next time someone cards me for buying beer, I’ll call the ACLU on them.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM

But then, now that we’re in midterms mode, The One needs enemies to beat on.

midterms ain’t got jack to do with him needing someone to beat on. He needed GWB, then House Repubs, Rush, and so on and so forth…it’s the tool of a demagogue–no blame for me, all for thee.

ted c on April 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM

There’s that too.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Wow little troll would never have guessed could come up with that. You have a great mind. /

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Annnnnnnnddd it’s probably unconstitutional.

There’s that too.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

What is unconstitutional about it?

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM

The lawyer who e-mailed me the other day thinks the “lawful contact” provision means that independent suspicion is required; Byron York reads the statute the same way. Assuming that reading is correct, then no, cops can’t pull you aside if you’re on your way to get ice cream with your kid just because they think you might be illegal.

“Lawful contact” is broader than that. It does not require probable cause or reasonable suspicion of an independent crime, it could be any other lawful contact between the civilian and the officer — such as reporting a crime or being questioned as a witness to a crime. That is an untapped controversial aspect of the law — at least I have not seen it pointed out the the pundits. Illegals will be afraid to report crimes or otherwise cooperate with authorities. They will be driven to a modern day omerta or vow of silence to avoid deportation.

tommylotto on April 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Next time someone cards me for buying beer, I’ll call the ACLU on them.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Next time somebody cards me, I’m giving them a big tip!

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM

The Liar in Chief….more concerned about lawbreakers spilling over our borders than AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Typical, but, I’ll play.
THE ARIZONA STATE LAW MIRRORS THE FEDERAL LAW!
Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, obama.

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Come to think about it, why is the president trying to keep people away from Ice Cream shops? Does Michelle have anything to do with this?

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Anything to shorten the line ahead of him, obviously.

massrighty on April 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I’ll remember that next time a cop asks for my driver’s license. Thanks.

“You can’t officer! It’s unconstitutional!”

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Cybergeezer — My sentiments exactly – wheres the investigation on the explosion — oh wait an Apple phone wasn’t involved .

wheels on April 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM

My father never get’s carded….strange.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM

They will be driven to a modern day omerta or vow of silence to avoid deportation.

tommylotto on April 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM

They could always go home.

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM

The cops can only question someone who orders fried ice cream.

HellCat on April 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM

FU Barack…..you are the enemy plain and simple…Tally Ho!!!

dmann on April 27, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Annnnnnnnddd it’s probably unconstitutional.

There’s that too.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

PROVE IT!

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 9:27 PM

If the law is unconstitutional, then let the courts say its so, however, trying to be “the bigger man” by extolling the virtue of failing to do the job your sworn upon the Bible to do, well, now that’s pretty unconstitutional.

The Fed should protect AZ/CA/TX/NM from foreign invasion.

Failing to do that, then…well, that’s pretty unconstitutional as well.

ted c on April 27, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM

:) bingo

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:27 PM

massrighty on April 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM

They’ll be in the shops enforcing the “nutrition facts on the menu law” so they’ll have some time to do a card check.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:27 PM

LOL

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Failing to do that, then…well, that’s pretty unconstitutional as well.

ted c on April 27, 2010 at 9:27 PM

You think CRR cares? ahahahahaha

PS I know you don’t

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Annnnnnnnddd it’s probably unconstitutional.

There’s that too.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

While I don’t like the law, I suspect it’s perfectly Constitutional. The law certainly limits the circumstances under which citizenship can be determined.

If I were the writer, I’d have taken it a bit further and only had the citizenship determination take place upon conviction of a misdemeanor or felony, and I would have required the State to make a citizenship determination for every one of the latter offenders. That way, there can be no taint of profiling, and everyone is certainly treated equally and fairly, without any of the possible abuse which might occur with the current law.

By the way, the possibility of abuse is possible with every law, so that’s not a fast track to unConstitutionality.

unclesmrgol on April 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Racist /

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:20 PM

:-) Naw, I can’t be…I don’t even like vanilla ice cream.

redwhiteblue on April 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM

They could always go home.

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Say, why didnt I think of that?

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

What is unconstitutional about it?

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Potentially a number of things, but most obviously a state has no power to make immigration laws. Immigration is related to foreign affairs, and the federal government has the sole power to make laws with respect to it. Just like states can’t make their own treaties with foreign nations, or have their own foreign policies…they can’t create immigration law.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Weirdly the troll Crr still has no opinion other than it might be unconstitutional.

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

I like how when crr6 says one thing, 60 people respond to him.

Man, it must be great to be loved. LOL.

Or a Liberal on HotAir. Same difference.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

His “first class” temperament is first on the demogogue scale: petty and viscous.

INC on April 27, 2010 at 9:20 PM

After drinking a potion of Saul Alinsky’s, Jeremiah Wright’s, Rahm Emanuel’s, David Axelrod’s, Bill Ayers’, Adolf Hitler’s, King George III, King Louis XVI and his own creation, Barack is transformed into the cruel, remorseless, pathological, misanthropic, pyromaniac (reference note #1) Herr Hussein, representing the hidden side of Obama’s dual nature brought to the fore. Barack has many friends and has a pleasing personality, but as Herr Hussein he becomes more and more dictatorial, more and more scape goating, makes ever longer enemies lists, encourages demonization and dehumanizing of political opponents and becomes ever more fascist like as time goes by as Herr Hussein grows in dominance. After taking this potion repetitively, he no longer needs to rely upon it to unleash his inner fascist demons.

Reference note #1: Such individuals who lack ulterior motive have traditionally been referred to in layman’s terms simply as a variation of a pyromaniac. Most such maniacs lack conscious motivation although they are fully aware of the acts they are failing to stop or they themselves are committing. Typically they will feel intense pleasure, gratification, or relief when causing destruction or when witnessing or participating in the aftermath. Motivation is also classified as pathological and non-pathological. Some research suggests that feeling such joy at horrific situation is pathological. Other research suggests that some motivation for this comes from rational thought. Taking joy in horrific situations for envisioned gains in political power and/or the concealment of the imposition of devious plans are examples of supposed rational decision making.

In layman’s terms barack Obama is becoming more and more like a rabid dog.

Sigmund on April 27, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Or her

no need to be sexist here….

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Idiotus Maximus.

n0doz on April 27, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Annnnnnnnddd it’s probably unconstitutional.

There’s that too.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Utterly not the point.

Aaaannnnnnndduh, if you’re incapable -due to your politically fashionable blinders- of seeing the point…

It. Is. As. Follows…

While you’re paying off those whom you owe, and concocting strategies to increase your voter base at the expense of actual, legitimate, taxpayers -under the guise of politically fashionable legislation- no one is actually engaged in managing, or even actually governing , our country.

And I’mnow getting that Special Olympic email every day…

Doorgunner on April 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM

I just heard on Levin that Jeb Bush has a problem with the law. This is one messed up bunch of stupid leaders.

mobydutch on April 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM

In what certainly seems like four score and seven years ago, American voters, deceived by a man of a true nature most foul and his media propaganda ministers, brought forth, upon this Nation, a warped man, conceived who knows where for certain, who is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created weak and subservient to his will and whim.

Now we are engaged in a great battle, testing whether this nation, or any nation so burdened, and so assaulted, can long endure. We are met here on a great internet battlefield, with compatriots at Tea Party Freedom Movement rallies, and compatriots in Arizona, of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of our lives in honor of our forefathers who dedicated their lives that this nation might live vigorous and free. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

It is for us, the living, to be dedicated to the restoration of freedom, liberty, progress and sanity which our Founders so nobly brought about. It is for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they so long ago gave the full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that our Founding Fathers shall not have labored in vain; that this nation shall have a rebirth of freedom and responsibility; and that this government will once again be of the people, by the people, for the people, and that we will not allow Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to cause it, and it’s shinning light, to perish from the Earth.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Well, I agree with you there. But it’s under a state’s power to enforce it’s laws so aren’t they breaking the law and then that kind of falls under their authority?

It’s a pretty sticky issue. I agree with you on that.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM

digging a hole

rob verdi on April 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

You’re as full of shiite as a Christmas turkey.

That is all.

GoldenEagle4444 on April 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM

They could always go home.

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM

But while they are here, they will be victimized by violent criminals — violent crime will increase in the US, and US citizens will be harmed by the increase in crime. Perhaps it would be better to only question those suspected of other crimes and not question those cooperating with cops in investigating criminal activity. Sortof like what Giuliani did in NYC. Unfortunately, the law does not give the officer the discretion to do that.

tommylotto on April 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

GoldenEagle4444 on April 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM


WHAT? I thought that was stuffing!

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

I just heard on Levin that Jeb Bush has a problem with the law. This is one messed up bunch of stupid leaders.

mobydutch on April 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Maybe Jeb should just worry about screwing up Florida and leave Arizona alone.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Potentially a number of things, but most obviously a state has no power to make immigration laws. Immigration is related to foreign affairs, and the federal government has the sole power to make laws with respect to it. Just like states can’t make their own treaties with foreign nations, or have their own foreign policies…they can’t create immigration law.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

You make the assumption this is an immigration law. I disagree. The immigration law already exists, hence the “illegal” part…

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…”

Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”

As far as “reasonable suspicion” is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It’s not race — Arizona’s new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: “Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling,” says Kobach. “An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor.” That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver’s license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There’s no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver’s license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver’s license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it’s a burden, it’s a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. That hasn’t changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. “The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit,” he says. “It’s drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny.”

The bottom line is, it’s a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused — no matter what the critics say.

Bryon York actually reads the law and reports in the Washington Examiner that it was carefuly drafted.

(Apparently buying ice cream will soon be a “legitimate reason” for the cops to stop you, since those clogged arteries will add to the costs of Obamacare?)

Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM

When does he start asking God to damn America?

Mojave Mark on April 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Unfortunately, the law does not give the officer the discretion to do that.

tommylotto on April 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

There are buses and flights leaving daily . Cry a friggin river. Tell this BS to legals who put up with BS and are victims of crimes.

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM

unclesmrgol on April 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM

So, when you leave your home….are you relatively sure it will be safe?
See…….people in Arizona don’t have that same feeling, so they are doing what the federal government will not. They are protecting their home.
So, what I am trying to say so nicely is….unless you live close to the murder capital of the world, Juarez, Mexico, you should shut your mealy mouth and let Arizona and the border states worry about it.
If you do live near the border with Mexico and you’re not worried…..you’re an idiot and you most likely have to use post it notes to remind yourself to breathe.

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Obama really has a hard on for predetermining court rulings, doesn’t he?

lorien1973 on April 27, 2010 at 9:05 PM

He’s got a hard on with AZ for passing that requirement to show BC’s, too. Pesky that issue, isn’t it?

Zippy’s all wee wee’d up for sure. Someone needs to get Ram to change his diaper.

Cody1991 on April 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Whoa. i followed the hyperlink on your tag-name and it leads to a Marine with an eyepatch. Dude!

Marine+eyepatch=awesomely awesome.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM

CRR is the Federal Government failing their Constitutional duty to protect the USA ?

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Well, I agree with you there. But it’s under a state’s power to enforce it’s laws so aren’t they breaking the law and then that kind of falls under their authority?

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Nope.

That’s the sort of ironic thing about it, really. Everyone gets hyped-up about the civil-rights implications….but what will actually end up getting the law invalidated is pretty boring, federalism stuff.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

just heard on Levin that Jeb Bush has a problem with the law. This is one messed up bunch of stupid leaders.

mobydutch on April 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Maybe Jeb should just worry about screwing up Florida and leave Arizona alone.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM
Dang right!!!!!

mobydutch on April 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

was just about to have some ice cream. Then again, I’m legal.

JammieWearingFool on April 27, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Well, you are braver than I am Jammie. After seeing that clip, I am terrified to go for ice cream.

JusDreamin on April 27, 2010 at 9:19 PM

This is just how old & blind & senile I’ve become. For a long, long time now I kept seeing this name as JamieWearFool and I was really wondering what it meant. OMG – HA!!!!!

Colorado Anne on April 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Potentially a number of things, but most obviously a state has no power to make immigration laws. Immigration is related to foreign affairs, and the federal government has the sole power to make laws with respect to it. Just like states can’t make their own treaties with foreign nations, or have their own foreign policies…they can’t create immigration law.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Opponents of Arizona’s attempts to protect its citizens argue, in part, that the Arizona law is “pre-empted” by federal law.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled:

When the text of a pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily “accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption.” Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U. S. 431, 449 (2005).

And the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit upheld a 2007 Arizona law mandating that employers in the state use the E-Verify system to ensure that they’re hiring legal workers. The Court threw out the pre-emption challenge. But it also threw out a challenge on the basis that the law might lead to unsavory police activities, saying:

If and when the statute is enforced, and the factual background is developed, other challenges to the 13066 CPLC v. NAPOLITANO Act as applied in any particular instance or manner will not be controlled by our decision.

The new law will probably find a similar reception in the courts. It will be upheld.
- Polipundit

Arizona’s new laws merely ask the police to enforce existing laws:

The Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person. This sounds draconian, except it’s been a federal crime for more than half a century — U.S.C. 1304(e). Has the open-borders crowd forgotten that it calls illegal aliens “undocumented” for a reason?

Police officers asking for papers may be redolent of old World War II movies. But consider the offending provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”

Hitler would be crestfallen. This hardly reeks of extremism. It means the vast majority of requests for documentation will occur in the course of other police business, like traffic stops.

The police already have the power to stop illegal aliens, a power the Arizona courts have upheld; they already can ask about someone’s legal status (the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 2005 that it has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment); and they already can detain illegal aliens. The Arizona law strengthens these existing authorities.
- Polipundit

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

PPOS that you are…..no law was created, a simple question as to residence…..you disingenuous asshat!

dmann on April 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

You and Jeb Bush, diaper boy. You and Jeb Bush. Square that one.

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

He probably never shuts up. No wonder Michelle has a sour look on her face all the time.

SouthernGent on April 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Sigmund on April 27, 2010 at 9:30 PM

After drinking a potion of Saul Alinsky’s, Jeremiah Wright’s, Rahm Emanuel’s, David Axelrod’s, Bill Ayers’, Adolf Hitler’s, King George III, King Louis XVI and his own creation, Barack is transformed into the cruel, remorseless, pathological, misanthropic, pyromaniac (reference note #1) Herr Hussein, representing the hidden side of Obama’s dual nature brought to the fore.

I think most of the little Barry part of his nature was left behind long ago. There’s only a mere shadow left.

INC on April 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

So wait, who get’s to enforce the law then?

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

When does he start asking God to damn America?

Mojave Mark on April 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM

That was in Ogabe’s opening prayer, it has already been washed from the record.

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

So wait, who get’s to enforce the law then?

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

The federal government.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Who in the federal government? Border patrol?

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4