Saturday, July 17, 2010

First Day of sb1070 hearing Disastrous for Brewer (La Bruja) and Cohorts

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV - One day after the first SB1070 court hearing there are new questions about how police will actually enforce the law. Nine On Your Side's Steve Nunez poured over his notes from the hearing and found testimony from the governor's own attorney that could deal a blow to the law's future. Judge Susan Bolton admitted the provision to "stop, detain, and arrest" is the most contentious part of Arizona's immigration law.

At issue: how long can an officer detain a person before determining immigration status?
Governor Brewer's Attorney John Bouma could not give an answer. He did say SB1070 still gives officers the option to call ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) when reasonable.

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada says if that's the case he can then continue to do what he's been doing for years: turn illegal's over to Border Patrol. Nunez asked Estrada: "What's the difference between stopping someone for a civil violation, writing a ticket and letting them go and stopping someone for a civil violation, writing a ticket but then questioning them for immigration status?"

Estrada answered, "With a civil violation you can't hold anybody and they can refuse to sign, for example, a traffic ticket. On a criminal violation they don't have an option if they don't sign it they get arrested."

Under SB1070, that means a person, including a legal resident alien or U.S. Citizen who fails to provide immigration papers or a valid driver's license, could be indefinitely detained until they can prove their legal status. Judge Bolton also raised the question: would undetermined detention time violate constitutional laws that restrict unreasonable detentions?

Immigration Attorney John Messing said the fact Governor Brewer's legal team could not answer this question blows a big hole in their defense case. "Because the constitution says you can't hold people without making an initial appearance within 24 hours that's the way Arizona structured its criminal code. If Governor Brewer's attorney's lose this initial salvo I think certain momentum will be built into the case that at the district court level could be disastrous for their side," said Messing. Messing now believes SB1070 will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.

4 comments:

Vicente Duque said...

To require citizens of Apache, Hopi and Navajo blood to prove their citizenship because of their skin color is ludicrous. After all, their ancestors were here at least 10,000 years before any Europeans arrived - Letter by Rabbi John M. Sherwood and Bruce Mitchell to Ventura County Star

Letters to the Editor : This letter urging the Oxnard City Council to boycott Arizona was sent to the council by the Oxnard Commission on Community Relations members Rabbi John M. Sherwood and Bruce Mitchell.

Largest city Oxnard
Population (2000) 753,197
Ventura County is a county in the southern part of the U.S. state of California (Southern California). It is located on California's Pacific coast. It is often referred to as the Gold Coast, and has a reputation of being one of the safest populated places and one of the most affluent places in the country. It is ranked as one of the 100 highest-income counties in the country and as the sixth wealthiest county in California by per capita income.


Ventura County Star
Panel urges Oxnard to boycott Arizona
July 17, 2010

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/17/panel-urges-oxnard-to-boycott-arizona/


Some excerpts :

Many of us did travel in the South, and saw signs that read, “No Jews, dogs, or N. . . s allowed” and we learned from them. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define racism, but I know it when I see it.

Despite the governor’s denials, racism is blatantly clear in SB1070. One clause in this infamous law says that a private citizen who does not think a police officer is enforcing the law can take that officer to court. The implication is that a KKK member can sue a police officer for not being sufficiently racist.

It is interesting that police chiefs in several Arizona counties have come out in opposition to this law which discourages citizen cooperation with the police and encourages rogue cops who dishonor the badge by arresting drivers for DWB (driving while black) to expand their practice to DWH (driving while Hispanic). We salute the dedicated cops who oppose this law.

Let’s look at reality. Canadians or northern Europeans who have overstayed their visas are not sought. This law declares an open hunting season on Hispanics. After all, skin color is not the issue here. It is inconceivable that a family member of Cochise or Geronimo should carry evidence of citizenship. Such a requirement appears to be blatantly racist.

But that is what racial profiling is all about. To require citizens of Apache, Hopi and Navajo blood to prove their citizenship because of their skin color is ludicrous. After all, their ancestors were here at least 10,000 years before any Europeans arrived.

It also says that all immigrants must carry identification with them 24/7. Does this imply a practical necessity for Hispanic citizens to carry their American passport all the time? Of what administration in what country does that remind you?

Given the issues described herein, we encourage the City Council to join Boston, New York City, St. Paul and the cities of Sacramento, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco and both the city and county of Los Angeles, in banning official business trips to Arizona and entering into new contracts with that state.


Raciality.com

Vicente Duque

Vicente Duque said...

CONTINUED :

It is interesting that police chiefs in several Arizona counties have come out in opposition to this law which discourages citizen cooperation with the police and encourages rogue cops who dishonor the badge by arresting drivers for DWB (driving while black) to expand their practice to DWH (driving while Hispanic). We salute the dedicated cops who oppose this law.

Let’s look at reality. Canadians or northern Europeans who have overstayed their visas are not sought. This law declares an open hunting season on Hispanics. After all, skin color is not the issue here. It is inconceivable that a family member of Cochise or Geronimo should carry evidence of citizenship. Such a requirement appears to be blatantly racist.

But that is what racial profiling is all about. To require citizens of Apache, Hopi and Navajo blood to prove their citizenship because of their skin color is ludicrous. After all, their ancestors were here at least 10,000 years before any Europeans arrived.

It also says that all immigrants must carry identification with them 24/7. Does this imply a practical necessity for Hispanic citizens to carry their American passport all the time? Of what administration in what country does that remind you?

Given the issues described herein, we encourage the City Council to join Boston, New York City, St. Paul and the cities of Sacramento, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco and both the city and county of Los Angeles, in banning official business trips to Arizona and entering into new contracts with that state.


Raciality.com

Vicente Duque

pcorn54 said...

The first lawsuit heard yesterday of Officer Salgado will probably be tossed as Brewer's lawyers have a valid point that he can't prove any harm has been done since the law is not in effect.

The ones to watch begin Thursday when the other six is scheduled, the DOJ, in the afternoon.

I think we'll get an injunction while this makes it's way to SCOTUS. Not that it will make any difference in the way Arizona does business.

The Arizonian said...

I find it funny that no where in the Fed's lawsuit do they say the law is "discriminatory".....

Which is weird because that seems to be what everyone is fussy over.

Page Hits