Migrants sell up and flee Arizona ahead of crackdown

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

The civil immunity protects us from being sued by people for no reason at all when we perform our duties (because some people think they know the law when they dont and end up going to jail because of it
0. If we are within state law, city ordinace and policy and procedure, we are generally immune from provate lawsuits directed solely at us. This being said Lawyers have gotten rich figuring out ways around this.

Nothing can keep you from getting sued. The paper is going to sit still for anything written on it and if you have the $350.00 US District court filing fee, you can file a watermelon. You will lose your watermelon but not before the watermelon pays all its seeds in defense fees. As far as immunity if you are acting under state law, a 1983 case requires that the complained of action be done under color of state law. Read Bivens again. That's why Arpaio and Maricopa County had to pay Scott Norberg's family 8.25 million dollars. You probably should have your union rep investigate whether your insurance pays for all costs of defense and whether those costs are included in the deductable. Arpaio has caused Maricopa County's deductable to go from $1 million to $5 million per case. You got 5 million lying around?

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

The civil immunity protects us from being sued by people for no reason at all when we perform our duties (because some people think they know the law when they dont and end up going to jail because of it
0. If we are within state law, city ordinace and policy and procedure, we are generally immune from provate lawsuits directed solely at us. This being said Lawyers have gotten rich figuring out ways around this.

Nothing can keep you from getting sued. The paper is going to sit still for anything written on it and if you have the $350.00 US District court filing fee, you can file a watermelon. You will lose your watermelon but not before the watermelon pays all its seeds in defense fees. As far as immunity if you are acting under state law, a 1983 case requires that the complained of action be done under color of state law. Read Bivens again. That's why Arpaio and Maricopa County had to pay Scott Norberg's family 8.25 million dollars. You probably should have your union rep investigate whether your insurance pays for all costs of defense and whether those costs are included in the deductable. Arpaio has caused Maricopa County's deductable to go from $1 million to $5 million per case. You got 5 million lying around?

Well for starters I dont live nor work in Arizona. Secondly, Civil immunity is just that. People can still file the lawsuit, and when it goes before a judge, the argument is presented the officer was within state / local law and departmental policy and procedure - case dismissed for lack of standing.

A civil rights violation occurs when an Officer, in the course of his duties, does something very stupid and violates another persons civil rights (arrest under false pretense, arrest because a person is black, brown, white or martian etc). A civil rights violation occurs based on the officers actions, hence under the color of law at the state level. The civil rights violation can only be brought in that manner.

We are saying the same thing, just different ways.

Typical....
So these people that have broken the law are now running from it. It is scary how ignorant people are. The AZ law is an enforcement of a Federal law so technically these ILLEGALS aren't safe anywhere. Well, at least AZ will get rid of some of these people that shouldn't be here anyway. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ARIZONA

reply to post by whatukno


YOU ARE AN IDIOT! GOD IT IS SCARY HOW DUMB PEOPLE ARE. HAVE YOU READ THE LAW????????????? DID YOU KNOW THAT THE AZ LAW IS ACTUALLY FEDERAL LAW..... WHY WASN'T IT A PROBLEM WHEN THE FEDS PASSED IT............. HAVE YOU READ THE LAW????????????

DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN ONLY ASK FOR DOCUMENTATION DURING A VIOLATION, WHETHER IT BE SPEEDING OR KILLING SOMEBODY.

DID YOU KNOW THAT WHEN ANY PERSON GETS PULLED OVER BY A COP, THEY ARE ASKED FOR ID. SO A COP PULLS A CAR OVER FOR SPEEDING, HE/SHE ASKS FOR ID AND THE ILLEGAL MEXICAN THAT BROKE OUR LAWS TO GET HERE AND IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF EVERYHTING THEY CAN IS ASKED FOR ID AND LONG BEHOLD THEY DON'T HAVE ID. THEN, THEY NEED TO PROVE WHO THEY ARE. JUST LIKE I WOULD HAVE TO IF I DIDN'T HAVE ID. SO, IF A COP ASKS ME FOR ID THAT IS A VIOLATION???????????? NO, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE PULLING OVER. WHAT IF I WAS A WANTED MURDER.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? IF I BREAK A LAW I PAY A PENALTY, WHY SHOULD THESE PEOPLE BE ANY DIFFERENT? MORON

reply to post by parrothead0333


I UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY HERE AND ARE SO IGNORANT. HOW SCARY IS IT THAT PEOPLE WON'T EVEN READ SOMETHING BEFORE THEY RANT AND RAVE ABOUT IT.

reply to post by Victoria 1


Whoa (CAPS), come on, lets be civilized here. No need to attack the messanger so much as the need to attack his message. If his position is so flawed, then it should be easy to disprove it in a respectful manner. I know that this issue is heated, but that shouldn't stop intelligent people from debating it in a respectful manner. In fact, it's more effective to do it that way.

The quickest way to shut off minds is to become belligerent. We sure aren't going to catch any flies that way and in fact, you step into the stereo-type that makes it harder for all of us to get our point across.

--airspoon


[edit on 27-7-2010 by airspoon]

reply to post by Victoria 1


Did your caps Lock key get stuck or a you the total bufoon type that thinks by "shouting" in a post, you are making a more rational statement. You aren't. You are marginalizing yourself more than any reply could.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
reply to post by Victoria 1

 

Did your caps Lock key get stuck or a you the total bufoon type that thinks by "shouting" in a post, you are making a more rational statement. You aren't. You are marginalizing yourself more than any reply could.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]

Was about to type something along these lines before reading your post.
Cap Lock isn't cruise control for cool anymore Victoria 1.

reply to post by The Sword


Go ahead and ask the Native Americans about the Mexicans and they will give you a earful about them also. The Mexicans did the same as the Europeans killed the Indians and stole their land. But the Mexicans went one step further by enslaving the Indians they didn't kill. Even if you don't like it this continent was Native American land not Mexican land.

reply to post by Victoria 1


What about the legal immigrants those that have done all the paperwork to come to this country legally that are also leaving Arizona because they don't want the harassment from the police?

Miranda is not alone. More than 100,000 undocumented immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years because of the bad economy and earlier enforcement crackdowns. Now, a new wave of Latinos is preparing to leave. And it isn't just illegal immigrants: Legal residents and U.S. citizens also say they will leave Arizona because they view the state as unfriendly to Hispanics.

Arizona's new immigration law is not so much about using local police to round up and deport as many of the estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in the state as possible, said state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, it's about creating so much fear they will leave on their own.

Read more: www.azcentral.com...

It's never been about illegal immigration, never was, that's why groups like The Pioneer Fund and FAIR helped push through this law. It's about trying to get rid of as many Latinos as possible from Arizona.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Victoria 1

 

What about the legal immigrants those that have done all the paperwork to come to this country legally that are also leaving Arizona because they don't want the harassment from the police?

So why aren't you complaining about the federal law which this law utilizes and copies????

It's never been about illegal immigration, never was, that's why groups like The Pioneer Fund and FAIR helped push through this law. It's about trying to get rid of as many Latinos as possible from Arizona.

Because the state of Arizona is racist but only racist against latinos ??? You're making no sense.

And again, I ask you, since you have all the answers, what do we do about all the millions of illegals already in this country?

reply to post by jfj123

So why aren't you complaining about the federal law which this law utilizes and copies????

Because it doesn't copy the Federal Law, it is close I will admit, but it is not uniform and so it is not constitutional. It must be uniform to the Federal Law exactly or else it is simply unconstitutional. It's only 17 pages long, so it didn't take too long to read, but it's not uniform to the federal law. The second it went outside of the Federal Law, it became unconstitutional.

Because the state of Arizona is racist but only racist against latinos ??? You're making no sense.

Others have said it themselves, Latinos are apparently the problem, even in the article John Kavanagh admits the idea is to drive out Latinos through fear. Did you miss that part? People who have come to this country the right way and are United States citizens are leaving Arizona out of fear from this law. Why should our own citizens have to be afraid of being persecuted? Is that right? Is that fair? They came to this country the right way and now feel as if they are being forced from their homes because of this law.

And again, I ask you, since you have all the answers, what do we do about all the millions of illegals already in this country?

I have already answered you directly earlier in this thread, if you don't bother to read it, it's not my problem, I won't just waste my time going over what I have already said if you aren't going to bother to read it.


[edit on 7/28/2010 by whatukno]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by jfj123

 

So why aren't you complaining about the federal law which this law utilizes and copies????

Because it doesn't copy the Federal Law, it is close I will admit, but it is not uniform and so it is not constitutional.

There are a lot of state laws that are not uniform with federal laws. Are you complaining about all of them?

It must be uniform to the Federal Law exactly or else it is simply unconstitutional. It's only 17 pages long, so it didn't take too long to read, but it's not uniform to the federal law. The second it went outside of the Federal Law, it became unconstitutional.

What exactly is not uniform with the federal law ?

Because the state of Arizona is racist but only racist against latinos ??? You're making no sense.

Others have said it themselves, Latinos are apparently the problem, even in the article John Kavanagh admits the idea is to drive out Latinos through fear. Did you miss that part?

Yes. Which article? Can you post the quote and source?

People who have come to this country the right way and are United States citizens are leaving Arizona out of fear from this law.

Not sure why??? If they are illegally detained or are illegally profiled, they'll be millionares !!!!

Why should our own citizens have to be afraid of being persecuted?

They shouldn't be. Why should we allow criminals to stay in the United States?

Is that right? Is that fair? They came to this country the right way and now feel as if they are being forced from their homes because of this law.

There is no reason for them to feel that way.

And again, I ask you, since you have all the answers, what do we do about all the millions of illegals already in this country?

I have already answered you directly earlier in this thread, if you don't bother to read it, it's not my problem, I won't just waste my time going over what I have already said if you aren't going to bother to read it.


[edit on 7/28/2010 by whatukno]

I read all your posts and didn't see the info.....I guess you could really show me if you simply reposted the info or pointed me to the post and said, "I told you so"

reply to post by jfj123

There are a lot of state laws that are not uniform with federal laws. Are you complaining about all of them?

Depends if it's a 10th Amendment issue or not, immigration law is not a 10th Amendment issue.

What exactly is not uniform with the federal law ?

I have already listed the differences previously in this thread, but apparently you are too lazy to remember or look it up yourself, so, I will do you the favor because apparently you are here just to argue and not make any rational point.

• Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.

Bolton said that "goes well beyond explicit enforcement provisions."

"Does this have the potential to violate the Constitution on reasonableness of detention?" she asked.

• A peace officer without a warrant may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

"Who gets arrested that couldn't get arrested before?" Bolton asked. "The determination of what makes an individual removable from the U.S. is a determination only the federal government can make."

• In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

"Isn't that really just an attempt to get around the fact that Arizona can't have its own alien-registration law?" Bolton asked.

Read more: www.azcentral.com...

Those are the points a federal judge has a problem with. Of course there is the additional problem with the violation of legal citizens 4th Amendment rights being grossly violated.

Yes. Which article? Can you post the quote and source?

Really? Really? You can't be serious. It was in the FREAKING POST YOU WERE REPLYING TO! I can see now that your only point is just trying to be a complete waste of time for everyone involved in this discussion.

Not sure why??? If they are illegally detained or are illegally profiled, they'll be millionares !!!!

They shouldn't be profiled to begin with, why should they be profiled? They came to this country the right way, but now they are to be treated as suspects based solely on their immigration status?

They shouldn't be. Why should we allow criminals to stay in the United States?

That's not the point I was making, I have already said that I believe that the Federal government should in fact enforce the federal immigration laws, I have said that several times in this thread already, if you cannot comprehend that, please don't bother replying to me.

There is no reason for them to feel that way.

There certainly is a reason for them to feel that way, they are now targets for persecution by local authorities. Their 4th Amendment rights have just been ripped from them, they are legal citizens who came to this country the right way but now, if they get pulled over for speeding, their immigration status will be checked which is unrelated to the supposed crime they are alleged to have committed. They will now be treated as guilty before being proven innocent.

I read all your posts and didn't see the info.....I guess you could really show me if you simply reposted the info or pointed me to the post and said, "I told you so"

I told you so.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by whatukno]

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

The civil immunity protects us from being sued by people for no reason at all when we perform our duties (because some people think they know the law when they dont and end up going to jail because of it
0. If we are within state law, city ordinace and policy and procedure, we are generally immune from provate lawsuits directed solely at us. This being said Lawyers have gotten rich figuring out ways around this.

Nothing can keep you from getting sued. The paper is going to sit still for anything written on it and if you have the $350.00 US District court filing fee, you can file a watermelon. You will lose your watermelon but not before the watermelon pays all its seeds in defense fees. As far as immunity if you are acting under state law, a 1983 case requires that the complained of action be done under color of state law. Read Bivens again. That's why Arpaio and Maricopa County had to pay Scott Norberg's family 8.25 million dollars. You probably should have your union rep investigate whether your insurance pays for all costs of defense and whether those costs are included in the deductable. Arpaio has caused Maricopa County's deductable to go from $1 million to $5 million per case. You got 5 million lying around?

Well for starters I dont live nor work in Arizona. Secondly, Civil immunity is just that. People can still file the lawsuit, and when it goes before a judge, the argument is presented the officer was within state / local law and departmental policy and procedure - case dismissed for lack of standing.

A civil rights violation occurs when an Officer, in the course of his duties, does something very stupid and violates another persons civil rights (arrest under false pretense, arrest because a person is black, brown, white or martian etc). A civil rights violation occurs based on the officers actions, hence under the color of law at the state level. The civil rights violation can only be brought in that manner.

We are saying the same thing, just different ways.

You've got the procedure almost right. The suit gets filed (in Fed Court). Then an answer is filed setting out the affirmative defense of "immunity." But the burden of proof on an affirmative defense is on the defendant. Very expensive and protracted discovery and motion practice ensues. If the defendant has not gone bankrupt by now from his defense costs, his attornies will file a motion before the judge saying, "Look I'm entitled to immunity. The judge will then, after very expensive briefs have been filed, will say, "OK, Mr. LEO, but the plaintiff asked for a jury trial, and since the burden of showing you are entitled to immunity is on you, it is an issue of fact for the jury, and we're going to trial. Anything else, gentlemen?" Now the defense costs really rack up preparing for trial, preparing and fronting costs for witnesses, preparing exhibits, researching and preparing proposed jury instructions, motions in limine to prohibit certain testimony/exhibits, etc.
And then the whole mess goes in front of a panel of slope-headed, slack-jawed mouth-breathers to decide your fate. Juries in civil cases against cops hate the cops. I spent several years as retained counsel for a State Police Legal Defense Fund which represented state police officers in civil cases (mostly excesive force cases) and the hardest part of the job was to use voir dire to find a jury that didn't want to lynch rhe cop on the spot before trial.
The whole point is we don't care much about winning or losing. Of course, winning is a special bonus, because then the officer/employer has to pay , under 1983, the plaintiffs fees in addition to his own. The simple hope is that fear of losing everything, including pension proceeds in most states, is going to have a salutory effect on enforcement.

Originally posted by whatukno
That's not the point I was making, I have already said that I believe that the Federal government should in fact enforce the federal immigration laws, I have said that several times in this thread already, if you cannot comprehend that, please don't bother replying to me.

Yes, I know you have said that. My point is that the federal government is not doing it's job so now states that are being adversely affected by illegal immigration, are taking the matter into their own hands. If they don't, their states will suffer.

Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say someone breaks into your house and you call the police and tell them who did it.
Now lets say it happens again and the same people did it. You once again call the police and they don't do anything to apprehend the criminals.
Now for a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th time, your house gets broken into by the same people and the police are doing nothing about it.
Do you keep letting it happen? Do you keep letting these criminals put you and your family in danger or do you do something yourself?

This is where AZ is at right now. What do you expect them to do ???

There is no reason for them to feel that way.

they are now targets for persecution by local authorities.

No they are not. They cannot be stopped just for looking latino.

reply to post by jfj123

Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say someone breaks into your house and you call the police and tell them who did it.
Now lets say it happens again and the same people did it. You once again call the police and they don't do anything to apprehend the criminals.
Now for a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th time, your house gets broken into by the same people and the police are doing nothing about it.
Do you keep letting it happen? Do you keep letting these criminals put you and your family in danger or do you do something yourself?

Welcome to Detroit.

Let me correct your analogy.

Someone breaks into your house, you call the police, they don't do anything.

The perps continue to break into your house, so you call a private security firm, that firm then starts punishing the people you invite into your house.

Is that better?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by jfj123

 

Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say someone breaks into your house and you call the police and tell them who did it.
Now lets say it happens again and the same people did it. You once again call the police and they don't do anything to apprehend the criminals.
Now for a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th time, your house gets broken into by the same people and the police are doing nothing about it.
Do you keep letting it happen? Do you keep letting these criminals put you and your family in danger or do you do something yourself?

Welcome to Detroit.

Or hundreds of other cities throughout the US.

Let me correct your analogy.

No need.

Someone breaks into your house, you call the police, they don't do anything.

The perps continue to break into your house, so you call a private security firm, that firm then starts punishing the people you invite into your house.

Is that better?

No it's not. I'll just stick with my analogy. Nice try though

[edit on 29-7-2010 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


See that's why legal US Citizens are leaving Arizona ahead of this law coming into effect. These people came to the US the right way, but thanks to this law, they no longer feel welcome in Arizona, with good reason.

Why should LEGAL immigrants be subject to harassment?

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Close.. A suit brought against an officer (outside of a civil rights violation) is at the state level. The 42 usc 1983 will be at the Federal Level, and only after someone brings a complaint their rights were violated, and only after the FBI does an investigation and fines cause to file charges against the officer.