j u s t c r i m

ZotZine Feature - Crossing cultures :: University of California, Irvine

Indigenous cultural artifacts share space with family photos on the walls and shelves of Justin Richland's UC Irvine office: kachina dolls, Hopi ceremonial rattles and a skate deck made by Lakota-owned Wounded Knee Skateboards.

The items reflect ancient traditions as well as ways in which Native Americans are adapting their culture to the modern era. It's fitting that Richland, associate professor of criminology, law & society, anthropology and law, straddles both worlds.

As co-founder and board member of The Nakwatsvewat Institute, he works with the Hopi tribe in Northern Arizona to settle disputes out of court in a manner mindful of their heritage. The nonprofit's name comes from a Hopi term meaning "moving forward together in a friendly way."

via zotzine.uci.edu

On aliens, Arizona may win — for now : SCOTUSblog

Analysis

States and cities may gain added power to take some steps to control the lives of illegal aliens, if the hints that emerged in a Supreme Court hearing Wednesday shape the Justices’ final reaction to an Arizona law.  But that added authority might well rest on a thin reed: a 4-4 split among the Justices that would not control the next time such an alien control law came before the Court.  Those prospects loomed as the Court spent an hour examining U.S. C hamber of Commerce v. Whiting (09-115), but without Justice Elena Kagan on the bench.

Amid indications that Arizona’s anti-immigration law will survive its challenge in the Court, the Justices pore over the meaning and scope of a 24-year-old federal law on aliens’ employment in the U.S.

via www.scotusblog.com

[Oral Argument Transcript]

medical marijuana law passes in ariz

Medical Marijuana Law Passes in Arizona from ACS Blog (nflatow)

In a surprise ballot-count turnaround, a law to legalize medical marijuana use in Arizona has passed by a narrow margin, The Associated Press reports.

9th Circuit Oral Argument Monday 11.01.2010 | Immigration & Ariz 1070

 

last words: "boomer sooner"

"[S]peculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is “‘sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering.’” Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35, 50 (2008) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25, 33 (1993)) @ http://bit.ly/9nQ7jf

________________________

[And as a result ... CNN

" ... The state of Arizona executed convicted killer Jeffrey Landrigan late Tuesday after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the lethal injection, a corrections official said.

The execution was carried out at 10:26 p.m. (12:26 a.m. ET), said Barrett Marson, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Corrections.

"I'd like to say 'thank you' to my family for being here and all of my friends," were Landrigan's final words, according to Marson. He concluded with "Boomer Sooner," a cheer often used by University of Oklahoma fans. ..." ]

immigration

Pulling together information on the Federal lawsuit versus Arizona @ the Criminology, Law & Society LibGuide pages - http://libguides.lib.uci.edu/criminology (See especially "Immigration").  Of special note off the Google News rss feed wire ...

______________________________

Profiling's enabler: High court ruling underpins Arizona immigration law.  Washington Post (Opinions)   By Gabriel J. Chin and Kevin R. Johnson. Tuesday, July 13, 2010:

"In its challenge to Arizona's controversial immigration law last week, the Justice Department argues that the state law conflicts with federal law, intruding on federal power and ability to regulate immigration. For many Americans, however, the lawsuit is needed because of concerns that Arizona's legislation, S.B. 1070, will lead to police harassment of people, particularly those of color, who cannot prove they are in this country legally. Yet for all the controversy over those concerns, few are talking about the real legal issue underlying the law. 

Supporters and opponents of S.B. 1070 assume that racial profiling is unconstitutional, largely because many Americans believe that it ought to be. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved the racial profiling permitted -- indeed encouraged -- by S.B. 1070.  In a 1975 case regarding the Border Patrol's power to stop vehicles near the U.S.-Mexico border and question the occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the high court ruled that the "likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor." In 1982 the Arizona Supreme Court agreed, ruling in State v. Graciano that "enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors..."  [WASHINGTON POST] 

 

287G

287G, referenced in the Arizona Immigration protest poster above (or perhaps below ,depending on whether i tire of the poster post as  prominently configured), is actually ...

"[O]ne component under the ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ACCESS umbrella of services and programs offered for assistance to local law enforcement officers.  ICE developed the ACCESS program in response to the widespread interest from local law enforcement agencies who have requested ICE assistance through the 287(g) program, which trains local officers to enforce immigration law as authorized through section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act..."   287g is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees.

[AZ's SB 1070 is available online, should you wish to confront the text]

legal analysis of az’s sb 1070 (crs)

Congressional Research Service Report (CRS) (by Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney.  Larry M. Eig, Specialist in American Public Law. Yule Kim, Legislative Attorney. May 3, 2010).  State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona’s S.B. 1070:

Conclusion:  "In recent decades, Congress has increasingly focused federal immigration policy on the daily incidents of alien residency. Concomitantly, Congress has enlarged the opportunities for states to become involved in enforcing immigration law. S.B. 1070 is in the vanguard of testing the legal limits of these increased opportunities, though H.B. 2162 modified some of its more legally ambitious efforts. To a large extent, the legal fate of Arizona’s attempts to supplement federal immigration enforcement efforts may depend on how its individual provisions are implemented.

Until then, it may be difficult to determine whether Arizona’s assertion of concurrent authority to affect unauthorized immigration is regarded as complementing federal efforts or as being counterproductive to them. At least some other states and localities that see themselves as heavily impacted by unauthorized immigration likely will join Arizona on any new ground that S.B. 1070 establishes. And this potential for diverse and possibly fragmented immigration enforcement doubtless will be among the many issues considered by the courts as legal challenges to S.B. 1070 proceed." State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 Congressional Research at 23.

ALTOARIZONA.COM

 

NATIONAL CONVERGENCE TO STOP THE HATE.  Phoenix, AZ

"We are making a NATION WIDE call to ACTION! We are asking everyone to come to Arizona and march with us on May 29th. We are all Arizona! Don't let this happen here or anywhere else! We must do this as a community and a nation."

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press: "Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law"

"Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them..." 

ABOUT:  "The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization that studies attitudes toward politics, the press and public policy issues. In this role it serves as a valuable information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars and citizens..."

May 12, 2010

Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law

Democrats Divided, But Support key Provisions

"The public broadly supports a new Arizona law aimed at dealing with illegal immigration and the law’s provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people who are suspected of being in the country illegally.

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 6-9 among 994 adults, finds that Democrats are evenly split over Arizona’s new immigration law: 45% approve of the law and 46% disapprove. However, majorities of Democrats approve of two of the law’s principal provisions: requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status (65%) and allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify their legal status (55%). Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the law and three provisions tested..."

by the time i get to arizona

Balkinization on Arizona - Preemption - et al. -- Is Arizona's New Immigration Law Preempted? (Balkin.  April 27, 2010):

"... The leading Supreme Court case on preemption of state immigration law, De Canas v. Bica, is now thirty five years old and predates recent federal immigration reforms, so it is anybody's guess about who the current Supreme Court would think about the issue... There is a much stronger argument that the new Arizona law, while purporting to be helpful, actually sticks a thumb in the eye of the federal government by engaging in draconian measures. The Arizona legislature appears to be saying, in effect: "since you won't police the borders, we will, and if you don't like it, pass some new legislation." If this is the point of the new Arizona law, then the law isn't really an attempt at cooperation but an attempt at provocation and one-upmanship, and the chances that it is preempted increase..."