I don’t know bout you, but I’d prefer the status quo any day over the existence of SB1070.

I didn’t say that the status quo didn’t criminalize people of color communities. just a matter of degree.

The problem with this argument though, is that given how detentions and deportations have increased under Obama, the status quo gave a message in some ways that actions such SB1070 are ok.

Good point. And now that turncoat McCain, etc. are jumping on the nativist bandwagon, the status quo stands to lean more to sb1070.

I like it. Thank you for your article. The Obama Administration has taken a decisive stand against Arizona’s controversial immigration law, Hope you will continuo your informative post.

@everyone,

If you look at the Feds suit, as well as ACLU, etc suit, the “guarding” of the immigration turf is closely aligned with a particular concern for individuals(at least some individuals).

Perhaps the most glaring vulnerability in the legal argument for supporting comprehensive state enforcement of immigration laws is the fate of potential asylees, which is mentioned in the suits.

Outside of conducting a full removal hearing(or asylum interview, but if one fails there, they get a full removal hearing), it is impossible to determine whether someone is eligible for asylum.

Given the idiocy of people like Russel Pearce(I mean, that guy is nothing other than a moron fillled with hate), many people who in fact are legally eligible to be here will be punished with jail time, arrests, etc.

In other words, the Feds, in part, are guarding the “federal line” in order to protect those eligible under the current immigration laws. Now if they would just change the current ones so this wouldn’t be necessary.

well it couldn’t have been voluntary manslaughter–, so it was between murder and what he got convicted with.

Assuming that there was no specific intent, the standard between Involuntary manslaughter and murder is gross negligence and recklessness, respectively. I think mistaking a taser for a gun is more like reckless–. It’s implausible that he made that mistake, given training, etc.

And if THAT was the case, maybe cops should stop using Tasers, and required instead to be in tip-top physical shape.

Bryan, I meant good point about the SB1070 lawsuits, not about the Oscar Grant verdict. I have a different take on that based on my years of anti-police brutality organizing

[...] lawsuit does take the same position as the suit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, that SB1070 is violating the “supremacy” of the Federal Government to enforce [...]

Well that would make sense especially since it could be looked at as a legal contradiction, not that they has ever stopped the Feds before.

I also read in one analysis that the Feds didn’t really use the racial profiling angle since the law hasn’t taken effect yet and therefore racial profiling cannot be proved.

Oh Bryan don’t tell me you believe that this country really is about and justice for all?

One comforting thing to keep in mind is that the Justice Department’s lawsuit WILL succeed. That is guaranteed. However, I am dismayed by the way the media has covered this story. They make it sound like court is going to determine whether Arizona’s law endorses racial profiling, or whether it is a reasonable response to a purported illegal immigration “crisis.” That’s not what this lawsuit will decide. There is an article on my blog about the media’s poor coverage of the legal aspect of this story. http://www.sandiegolemonlawyer.net/blog/media-ignoring-the-legal-aspect-of-federal-governments-lawsuit-against-arizonas-immigration-law/

I haven’t seen that angle being ignored in the media. In fact the articles that I have read have pointed out that the bulk of the Federal lawsuit has nothing to do with racial profiling. Pero, perhaps your sources and mine are not the same.