The Arizona anti-immigrant law (pdf) has a provision that ought to be making lawyers’ mouths water:
G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.
2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
If I’m reading that correctly, a unit of Arizona government that gives the benefit of the doubt to a citizen who the unit of government could plausibly suspect as illegal is subjecting itself to significant legal exposure. That’s an attorney’s full employment act right there: $5,000 per day, the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, and the government’s attorney’s fees. I’m sure that money couldn’t be better spent elsewhere.
Ready to pack up and head west?
Hah. Now I’m hearing that Kid Rock song:
“Well I’m packing up my game and I’m a head out west . . . cause I wanna be a Cowboy, baby.”
I hear there are lots of cheap houses out there too, what with the bubble and all.
Just don’t forget to bring your swastika armbands.
Doug, why do you call it an “anti-immigrant” law. It certainly is an “anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant law, but the word “illegal” is important, no?
Personally, I am not sure what the big deal is about this law. Arizona passed a law telling state and local actors to assist federal government by handing over people suspected of being illegal immigrants to the federal government. Is that really an outrageous idea? Contrary to what some would have you believe, the bill does not request enforcement based upon skin color, race, or any other sensitive categories.
It’s the implementation, Paul. If illegals walked around with a sign on their forehead saying “ILLEGAL,” then I wouldn’t have a problem with this. It’s the crap that goes along with the process of getting from “I see a brown person whose English is suspect” to a determination of whether that person is here legally.
And the way it’s written, any unit of government can get their ass sued off for giving someone the benefit of the doubt and get to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees for the pleasure. You can “reasonably suspect” someone who is, in fact, here legally. But, if you have that reasonable suspicion but don’t demand papers from the natural born citizen who made you suspicious, you could end up paying through the nose if a concerned citizen calls you on it.
Doug, I think we agree that the implementation COULD be the problem. However, no enforcement has even happenned yet, how can we assume it will be poorly and racially handled?
Would poor enforcement be an issue of the law, or an issue of the enforcers? Is it even possible for Arizona to come out and try to get immigration laws enforced more heavily without being accused of racism? Here in Indiana, I have a hard time knowing the issues Arizona citizens face due to illegal immigration. Can’t the legislature say “enough is enough”?
You seem concerned about this law being too difficult for enforcers, having to tread the line of “reasonable suspicion”. I understand that. However, the only other way is to give police more discretion wihtout consequences. That could be a concern too. How exactly would a “concerned citizen” try to prove a cop or other state actor let an illegal go? Do they follow the cops around all day? That certainly doesn’t sound very cost-effectivee. However, I have no issue with citizens being able to sue enforcement for egregious errors, as police can be corrupt or incompetent, just like every other occupation.
As I see it, this can only be enforced racially or stupidly. Fact is, you don’t have many white or black immigrants in Arizona illegally. So, the impact of this legislation is going to fall almost entirely on Hispanic people. I suppose there may be some illegal Asians in Arizona, but I doubt there are many.
I can’t speak to other states, but in Indiana, the legislature has given the police law enforcement immunity for enforcement or failure to enforce a law. So, if, for example, an officer sees someone who might be drunk walking out of a bar and getting into their car, but chooses to ignore him in favor of responding to a call of an attempted murder in progress or something, the police officer won’t be liable if the drunk driver later kills someone. If the police department had a policy of having its officers ignore potentially drunk drivers in such a situation, it would not be liable.
Now, let’s substitute drunk driving laws for immigration laws in the Arizona legislation. In the above hypothetical, the police department would be liable for $1,000 – $5,000 per day it left that policy in place from the time the lawsuit was filed. Frequently, it takes 60 days to file an answer to a lawsuit (let alone litigate it). Under this law, the department could be on the hook for $300,000 by that time. If the lawsuit took a year to litigate, by its conclusion – assuming a year to get a decision from the judge or jury – we’re talking between $365,000 – $1.8 Million plus attorney’s fees.
With that kind of money on the line, I would suspect a cautious municipality would be inclined to arrest and draw blood from anyone who so much as stumbled near a police officer.
If a law can “only be enforced racially or stupidly,” do you vote to not enforce the law, despite the significant benefits of enforcing the law? I struggle with the answer to that question. However, I am not sure the law has to be enforced racially or stupidly. I could foresee enforcement being required to notice things like (1) can’t speak the language; (2) thick accents, (3) odd (possibly international) attire, and making a reasonable request for ID based upon those factors.
Of course, for the law to apply, an illegal immigrant also has to have broken the law, before the cop has any duty whatsoever. So “stumbling” near a police officer, wouldn’t be enough, right?
Your discussion of the $5k fine must be referring to Article 8, Section G, paragraph 2 (I hate reading bills), which says (their caps, not mine): “THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.”
Do you interpret that provision to mean that based upon a cop’s one-time decision not to pursue checking an ID on a single day, the agency can be fined $5k per day during the length of the lawsuit? That is not how I interpret the bill, since the “policy” is not at issue here, but I admit that you probably have much more experience interpreting this type of bill than I do.
Still, I do recognize that the penalties for non-compliance are signficant, and possibly too large. The problem here is the $1.8 million (maximum) you describe is HUGE to a local police department, but would be a rather small dent in the state’s overall budget, so if a state agency decided to incur the fine, it might need this amount of “teeth”.
Of course, the issue you present is not the one presented in most of the complaints I have read. I admit, the penalties might be a little steep. I would love to hear how the AZ legislature might rationalize them.
One more point might be that this in effect is truly an ‘anti-immigrant bill’. To get to the illegals ,police may have to harasss a number of legal residents. Hispanics, when Ive heard their concerns expressed, have called this type type of legislation ‘anti-immigrant’. I now understand their point.
For a long time I bought into the idea that we must control illegals for the sake of legal immigration,but then I realized that the only way to prove citizenhip is with a birth certificate or naturalization papers.Many seem to confuse legality with citizenship so thats another issue that complicates.No National ID for us americans! So if someone shows a drivers license to a policeman will he let that pass,and assume the person is legal with a ‘legal’ drivers license? I havent heard what kind ‘papers’ would be accepted. Anyone can get a drivers license if he can drive.
Ive pointed before that I know a family in Chicago whose father had been illegal ever since he came here about 1960. His wife and children are legal residents.Yet he lived for 35+ years as if he were legal,paid SS,taxes and will be drawing SS and owns a house on the West Side of Chicago in Polish-Hispanic neighborhood..No one had ever called him on his legality.For all practical purposes he was a legal resident. How can a country ,the USA, allow what can be termed ‘legality by longevity’ to go on for years and years and then uproot people overnight who in many cases have been living in families where some are legal and some aren’t . Common sense out the window when long accepted practice becomes a problem.
There has to be a way for established illegal residents to become officially legal and then to become citizens .
I just dont think people are understanding what the situation is,or maybe don’t care.. Again there is no news source that is universally accessed where people can become informed.People tend to seek out news they feel comfortable with,or they know they probably will agree with. Some years ago ,I was preaching ‘kick the illegals out’. But i had no idea how inadvisable that would be. It would be social upheavel at its worst for everyone.
Absolutely this country needs immigration reform which includes the illegal and legal immigrants already here.Were talking about millions of illegals and probably a similar number of legal immigrants living all togther who would also be effected.
My Polish friend in Chicago finally became a citizen after 40 years because coming back from a trips to Europe, he was held a couple times at immgration for long periods while his wife and son had to sit and wait for him,while authorities checked him out. It seems like the first check out should have canceled the second check ,but immigration control is kind of muddled, I think.
There seemed no reason to bother with citizenship before in his mind.They have a Polish telephone book,lots of support in Polish from community groups, and shop at stores where everyone,including the stock boys, speak Polish.At one time the mailman also spoke Poklish.They talk back and forth in Polish and English like its just one big language.
This is similar in hispanic communities who are ‘mixed'( i.e legal and illegal).It doesnt seem a valid point to wait to see how the law is enforced.Cases would have to be monitored and tabulated for years..If I understood Doug above,thats what he also posted.
Another point: is this bill aimed only at the itinerant workers in Arizona? Im guessing not even those who wrote and signed the bill have thought about that.
Immigration is very very complicated is at least the mimimum point that hopefully has been made here.
I think I also intermixed the terms ‘legal’ and ‘citizenship’ above .Hispanics could come across the border to work and they were then automatically legal as long as they worked..But they can no longer just
‘stand around’,because that’s now an illegal state.
“There has to be a way for established illegal residents to become officially legal and then to become citizens .”
There is. The illegal immigrant can return to their home country and apply for citizenship. It sounds harsh, but I am not sure why anyone should be rewarded for breaking the law.
@Paul – your examples of “thick accent” or being unable to speak the language are precisely why this law is anti-immigrant, and not just anti-illegal immigrant.
Isn’t there a precedent in law that if things are done a certain way and have been commonly accepted as ‘OK with government’,so the practices becomes common law? It would seem a valid precedent not to now enforce new laws that undo what nobody in authority did anything about over a long period fo time. My knowledge of law is only from when I served jury duty,or had to go to court once.
I remember recently an incident with church property and the neighbor who was planting tomatoes just over his property line on rectory land,and the church leaders never bothered to look into it thinking it was a trivial thing.But it was pointed out at a church council meeting that the land could revert to the neighbor over time under common law.So the church fenced in their property deciding that was the easiest way to solve the problem.
Rightly or wrongly ,this is how I look at the mixed family mess of legal and illegal family members all over the country.. It was easy to let things drift .Many benefitted by the unofficial ‘legality’ of the illegals. Now the government is forced by untenable conditions to crack down on what was winked at for long years,and the common folk pay in order to establish control because the state government is getting raked over the coals by public opinion.I’m not saying these common folk have not broken laws,but I learned from my teaching years that not enforcing a rule or law means you probably will never be able to enforce it later without some or great resentment.
So law enforcement becomes counter productive with all sides seeing themsleves as being scapegoated. People establish their equilibrium by what they perceive as how laws/rules are enforced and practices permitted. Why must the individual always pay the price for government ineptitude? Consider this observation ‘anti-government’ from a liberal point of view.
The federal government has to step in for the solutions and re-establish immigration as a federal domain. The states don’t have the authority or means to control immigration. Arizona is desperate and broke.
The situation has to be set staight,but start with a process of affording those here , due to this government wink of approval, a quick non-encombered path to citizenship.Its not going to be easy but established familes of legal/illegal members should not be broken up. That would cause even more social upheavel for all concerned.Let government mitigate what they caused in the first place by inaction..It looks like there will no federal immigration action til next year. In the meantime…?
It seems to me that everyone is trying to debate issues that are not there. Maybe US immigration policy should be changed one way or another, but Arizona is not attempting to tamper with federal law.
The Arizona police are not going on a dragnet for persons with brown skin who speak Spanish. All the new law does is give the Arizona police an additional duty during their normal operations.
If the police stop a person on suspicion of drunk driving, for example, and there is additional evidence at the scene of illegal immigration, the police will have a duty to press an illegal immigration count, along with the drunk driving count.
Arizona police formerly ignored the immigration issue when making an arrest. The net change is that they have a duty now to press the issue.