quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Hmmmmmmm   California wanted their illegals detained and deported.   Why all the problem when Arizona does?   Huh California?

     This responds to your memorandum to Seth Waxman, Associate Deputy Attorney General. In that memorandum, you requested a legal opinion from this Office concerning the circumstances in which state and local police in California can assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") in enforcing the federal immigration laws.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/immstopo1a.htm

     Subject to the provisions of state law, state and local police may constitutionally detain or arrest aliens for violating the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.       State and local police lack recognized legal authority to stop and detain an alien solely on suspicion of civil deportability, as opposed to a criminal violation of the immigration laws or other laws.      State and local police may detain aliens reasonably suspected of a criminal violation of the immigration laws for periods of as long as 45 to 60 minutes when detentions of that length are necessary to allow for the arrival of Border Patrol agents who are needed for the informed federal disposition of the suspected violations.
TERESA WYNN ROSEBOROUGH Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Hmmmmmmm   California wanted their illegals detained and deported.   Why all the problem when Arizona does?   Huh California?

    This responds to your memorandum to Seth Waxman, Associate Deputy Attorney General. In that memorandum, you requested a legal opinion from this Office concerning the circumstances in which state and local police in California can assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") in enforcing the federal immigration laws.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/immstopo1a.htm

    Subject to the provisions of state law, state and local police may constitutionally detain or arrest aliens for violating the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.       State and local police lack recognized legal authority to stop and detain an alien solely on suspicion of civil deportability, as opposed to a criminal violation of the immigration laws or other laws.      State and local police may detain aliens reasonably suspected of a criminal violation of the immigration laws for periods of as long as 45 to 60 minutes when detentions of that length are necessary to allow for the arrival of Border Patrol agents who are needed for the informed federal disposition of the suspected violations.
TERESA WYNN ROSEBOROUGH Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel

That's the legalistioc wording that says that in California there is no "paper's please" authority. The point that supporters of Arizona refuse to see is how utterly repugnant the law in question is. It says that if you think there is a chance that a police officer might think you are not a citizen, read have brown skin, they can demand to see your proof of citizenship at any time. How would you like it if you were subject to being arrested and held for days until you could prove your identity if you forgot your ID? How is it American to be putting that onus on a single class of people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Did you read the AZ Law.   They have to be stopped for some other reason first.   Normally a traffric stop, then the reasonable suspension provision kicks in.   I have no clue why someone out jogging would get detained as an illegal.   you'll have to show that provision of the law to me   I didn't see it

quote:

Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding section 13-1509, to read:
13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
classification
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

quote:



   In 1998, however, when senior INS officials learned that Operation Vanguard was successful in generating sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants, INS issued an internal memorandum cutting off workplace enforcement. The change in agency priority was not required or approved by Congress, but was in response to “complaints.”

   There was an uptick in enforcement from FY 2005 to FY 2009, but in 2010, another internal agency memorandum, dated June 30, 2010, has cut interior immigration law enforcement except against serious criminals and national security risks. A second internal memorandum, dated August 20, 2010, has released thousands of illegal immigrants from deportation proceedings because the agency has decided to deport only national security risks and aliens with serious criminal records (more than one misdemeanor). These agency memoranda, untethered to any legislative delegation of authority, contradict President Obama’s announced priorities and Congressional intention

   In addition, Congress applied RICO5 to the hiring of illegal immigrants. Section 274 (the harboring and smuggling prohibition) was expanded to include multiple hiring of illegal immigrants. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A), Pub. L. 104-208, Div. C, Title II, § 203(b)(4). Congress also amended the list of RICO predicate crimes to include “any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens) . .. if the act . . . was committed for the purpose of financial gain.” 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(F).

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

That is a stretch isn't it?  Are you saying that ICE under it's RICO inspections (that pretty much quit happening at ICE Memo level only during the Clinton Administration) think that only brown skinned people can be illegal?   I think not.  Nor could I find any portion of SB 1070 that says that.   I believe that is called racial profiling and that in itself I believe is illegal.   So you gonna have to show me the specific citation that says it is for brown skinned people only because I just don't see it.   And probable cause and reasonable belief that someone can not turn on the color of their skin.

But during the Cllinton Administration Immigration seems to stop RICO enforcement as mandated by law because business complained.  Personally I don't care if business complains, If they are harboring law breakers, they are violating the law.   Has nothing to do with skin color

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

That is a stretch isn't it?  Are you saying that ICE under it's RICO inspections (that pretty much quit happening at ICE Memo level only during the Clinton Administration) think that only brown skinned people can be illegal?   I think not.  Nor could I find any portion of SB 1070 that says that.   I believe that is called racial profiling and that in itself I believe is illegal.   So you gonna have to show me the specific citation that says it is for brown skinned people only because I just don't see it.   And probable cause and reasonable belief that someone can not turn on the color of their skin.

But during the Cllinton Administration Immigration seems to stop RICO enforcement as mandated by law because business complained.  Personally I don't care if business complains, If they are harboring law breakers, they are violating the law.   Has nothing to do with skin color

RICO was never intended to have this broad a mandate.

But as with the Patriot Act, we have had overzealous prosecutors and enforcement agencies trying to use it for anything possible.

But of course, the same people that complain about legislating from the bench have absolutely no problem with a law being used inappropriately as long as it is used for what they oppose.


RICO ACT

In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress' goal was to eliminate the ill-effects of organized crime on the nation's economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.

Throughout the 1970's, RICO's intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.

............Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.