Jul08
Why is the administration picking on Arizona, when Rhode Island has been doing the same thing for years?
And why aren’t filing lawsuits against so-called “sanctuary cities,” when what they’re doing is not enforcing federal immigration law, but defying it?
That was a rhetorical question, of course.
I also found this amusing:
The border’s too big. The hole in the Gulf is too deep. The recession is too stubborn. Maybe we should find the president a smaller, easier-to-manage country to govern. You know – send him to the minors for a few years.
I guess “Si se puede” has become “No, we can’t.”
RI having this law is like AZ establishing a moose hunting season. Ranking up near the Not Necessary Line.
I’ve been in and out of RI regularly over the last 4 years. RI has about as many Spanish Border Jumpers as AZ has moose. Granted, they are there, but not in the MILLIONS that cross AZ possibly every year. Nor filling the RI jails. Ergo, RI is a small (liberal) target, compared to AZ, and of little gain to the WH maroons.
I see more Spanish speakers here in NC, percentage wise, than I did in RI too. AZ is WAY over us on that card, much less RI.
Schtumpy, where in the Az or the RI law does it specify “Spanish Border Jumpers”?
The federal Bank Robbery Act of 1934 makes it a federal offense for anyone to rob a bank. As we know, local police go after bank robbers. In doing so they are enforcing a federal law. I can’t wait to see the unintended consequences if the feds win this law suit.
Hi All,
I guess none of you were in law enforcement.
The R.I. police are merely reporting the suspicion the federal law is being broken. They are not arresting anyone, and so are not “enforcing” the federal law.
By contrast the AZ law requires they arrest the individual and hold them in jail until they prove they are innocent. AZ is therefore in violation of two legal principles. First, in pouching on what is the federal government responsibility. Second, and more serious, assuming someone is guilty until they prove their innocence.
Also Bank Robbery has always been covered by state law. The federal Bank Robbery Act of 1934 made it a federal offense so the FBI could purse bank robbers across state lines, a tactic that bank robbers of the era like Bonnie and Clyde were famous for…. It won’t be effected by any decision on the Arizona law.
If you’re looking for a law that’s clearly federal, it would be counterfeiting.
And trust me, the feds would have a complete cow if a city declared “We aren’t going to turn over people we catch that might be worth investigating under your counterfeiting laws. We’re a Sanctuary City, because we believe they’re just underappreciated artistes.”
First, in pouching on what is the federal government responsibility.
If they are doing so. I imagine a Supreme Court with two or more Obama appointees might rule against Arizona on this basis, but it isn’t a done deal. Suppose Arizona police officers legally stumble across a US currency counterfeiting operation. Are they required to let the involved parties free or can they arrest them on suspicion of having committed a crime.
Second, and more serious, assuming someone is guilty until they prove their innocence.
I gather that they would be holding people who had a reasonable suspicion of being in violation of US law. From what I gather, green card holders are required to carry proof of their status.
assuming someone is guilty until they prove their innocence
It is the courts that are required to assume innocence. For the police to assume innocence would mean they’d be incapable of doing there job, which includes providing evidence of guilt. I do wish the police had more wisdom in their pursuits at times.
Way to win the thread, Al. Nicely done.
Al,
[[[across a US currency counterfeiting operation]]]
If they believe there is a counterfeiting operation they would report it to the Secret Service who handles it.
If they stumble on one, they would try to hold them on other charges until the Feds arrived, or just stay on the scene until the feds arrive to take charge, which could be fairly quick in a big city.
Thomas, that is what happens for counterfeiting, that isn’t what happens for immigration violations. Extend that same approach to potential immigration violations – and you get pretty much exactly what Arizona is implementing.
The fact that it is a federal crime doesn’t prohibit the locals from looking at the bundle of cash and going “Gosh, this is pungent and smeary, I think it might be counterfeit, perhaps we should report it up the line.”
Instead we have cities like my own – Seattle – where it is illegal for the policeperson to ask citizenship status. “So, is this counterfeit?” Even when they do convict someone of some other crime, they don’t pass the possible immigration violation up the line. “Because it is cruel and unusual to deport a fellow because of a conviction that could just have been a barroom brawl.”
If anyone passed a law making it illegal to tell the Treasury Service or Secret Service about a possible counterfeit bill, there would be hell to pay.