Arizona immigration law

[sidious618]

It's an atrocious law and it'll be overturned.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the "contact" between the police officer and the person is "lawful" in the first instance.

That doesn't mean anything. If a cop just walks up to you on the street, that's a lawful contact, isn't it? Or if they stop a car for a speeding ticket? They can justify anything as being a 'lawful' contact.

 

[sidious618]

it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the "contact" between the police officer and the person is "lawful" in the first instance.

That doesn't mean anything. If a cop just walks up to you on the street, that's a lawful contact, isn't it? Or if they stop a car for a speeding ticket? They can justify anything as being a 'lawful' contact.

You are correct which is why this law should, and will, be overturned by the courts if it is put into action.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, this is.

 

[1001001]

There are two angles to the problem of illegal immigration: the immigrants themselves, and the businesses that employ them.

Curiously enough, we primarily seem to target illegal immigrants--who usually don't speak English, aren't white, are poor, and have virtually no legal resources. And yet, we seem to give the businesses that employ them a pass. Where's the push for hefty fines, thorough investigations, revocation of charters? The perception seems to be that it's the Mexicans who are the problem, while the employers who give them a reason to be here fly under the radar.

So, yeah, what other conclusion am I to draw?

Exactly.

Punish the desperate person looking for a job and ignore the businesses who hire them. But even if you try to go after the businesses, they scream about government regulation, Big Brother, and interference of the Nanny State, blah, blah, blah.

It's ridiculous, and ultimately, disingenuous.

Like George Lopez says: "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."

 

[Gertch]

If a cop just walks up to you on the street, that's a lawful contact, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "just walks up to you". If you mean they stop you on the street then they must have a reason as described at about the 9 minute mark on this interview of Gov Jan Brewer.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

. If you mean they stop you on the street then they must have a reason

How so? They have all the power. They can stop anyone they want for whatever reason they want (or none at all). Who's going to take them to court? It's their word against yours.

And the link you gave? Doesn't work. No video plays. What does the governor say?

 

[Gertch]

It's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, this is.

If a cop pulls you over and asks for a license and registration do you protest and claim your 4th Amendment rights? How about when the IRS demands to see your insurance papers when Obamacare fully kicks in? As a citizen you'll have to have insurance but illegal aliens wont. Is that irony?

 

[Gertch]

There are two angles to the problem of illegal immigration: the immigrants themselves, and the businesses that employ them.

Curiously enough, we primarily seem to target illegal immigrants--who usually don't speak English, aren't white, are poor, and have virtually no legal resources. And yet, we seem to give the businesses that employ them a pass. Where's the push for hefty fines, thorough investigations, revocation of charters? The perception seems to be that it's the Mexicans who are the problem, while the employers who give them a reason to be here fly under the radar.

So, yeah, what other conclusion am I to draw?

Exactly.

Punish the desperate person looking for a job and ignore the businesses who hire them. But even if you try to go after the businesses, they scream about government regulation, Big Brother, and interference of the Nanny State, blah, blah, blah.

It's ridiculous, and ultimately, disingenuous.

Like George Lopez says: "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."

Oh my leftist heart bleeds... oh wait. LMBAO the border crossed us.

Racial profiling - Gov Jan Brewer covers that at 4 minutes in on this interview.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If a cop pulls you over and asks for a license and registration do you protest and claim your 4th Amendment rights?

No, because to drive a car I must have my driver's license and registration. If I'm just walking down the street, they shouldn't be able to stop me and demand ID for no reason.

Racial profiling - Gov Jan Brewer covers that at 4 minutes in on this interview.

Like I said: That link DOES NOT WORK. What exactly does she say?

 

[John Picard]

If a cop pulls you over and asks for a license and registration do you protest and claim your 4th Amendment rights?

No, because to drive a car I must have my driver's license and registration. If I'm just walking down the street, they shouldn't be able to stop me and demand ID for no reason.

What part of "reasonable suspicion" do you *NOT* understand?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Under this new Arizona law, the police will be able to use the simple fact that a person is or appears to be Hispanic as reasonable suspicion. That doesn't bother you?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I'm curious how well this will hold up if an when they start enforcing the provision that makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly provide shelter to less than 10 illegal immigrants or a felony for more than 10. I bet as soon as the first priest, nun, or minister gets dragged out of their church in cuffs for providing food, water, clothing, and medical care to immigrant families the public support for this will shift rather quickly. Thta is, unless they don't enforce it or enforce it hypocritically, much like how they conveniently overlook rich people and businesses which employ illegals.

It also seems strange to me for a state that's so dependent on tourism and cross-border business to basically single out Hispanic people and tell them to always have their papers on hand. That's the sort of thing that will get lots of people (legal or not) to boycott the state altogether.

Then we have the fact that illegals or legal immigrants who just don't happen to have ID on them aren't going to want to get involved with helping the police stop actual dangerous crimes for fear that they might become the center of police attention. Good idea there.

And what exactly constitutes "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien that doesn't involve racial profiling of Hispanics? Because somehow I doubt if Joe Smith of Flagstaff is taking a jog without ID he's going to get detained like say Jose Sanchez would in the same situation with the same legal status.

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

 

[trekkiedane]

It is unjust to attempt to address a criminal activity (illegal immigration) by violating the rights of citizens (demanding ID with no pretext whatsoever, under threat of arrest).

I think what you're saying is that a political problem should not be passed on to the police. -I agree with that.

However, I do believe that law enforcement should have the right to ask anyone who they are at any time and place (which is how it is here) )whether or not people should be forced to carry 'papers' to prove who they are is another political question; I think not - some might disagree).

Two guys matching the description of a pair of muggers fleeing in that general direction were stopped and asked to identify themselves - a couple of minutes later it was confirmed that they did not have any 'priors' and the officers said thanks and let us get on with our business... Where's the harm in that?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Two guys matching the description of a pair of muggers fleeing in that general direction were stopped and asked to identify themselves - a couple of minutes later it was confirmed that they did not have any 'priors' and the officers said thanks and let us get on with our business... Where's the harm in that?

I'll leave out the whole can of worms where the term "you fit the description..." has been abused by law enforcement before to stop people they just wanted to check out when no actual crime had been committed and say that the difference there is that reasonable suspicion already exists in the form of a report of the subjects appearance, direction, vehicle, what have you.

The difference here is that no such prior report is required and that reasonable suspicion is established simply if a person looks or sounds like they might be an illegal immigrant. I'm wondering how one enforces that without either A) making the law a moot point and only able to be enforced when you've already stopped a person and asked for ID for some other crime or violation - in which case this law is pointless because that can already be done, or B) racially profile based on appearance and speech and make an assumption that a person might be here illegally. This law makes no sense unless it encourages racial profiling, because you can already stop someone and ask for ID if you've pulled them over for a legitimate offense. This is asking you to stop people who have as far as you can possibly know beforehand committed no crime.

 

[John Picard]

^ Under this new Arizona law, the police will be able to use the simple fact that a person is or appears to be Hispanic as reasonable suspicion. That doesn't bother you?

I was referring to the Supreme Court ruling that an officer can demand ID.

 

[JiNX-01]

http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

But, isn't that the Supreme Court for Nevada only? I mean, that wouldn't necessarily apply to Arizona, would it? (I realize I'm showing my political ignorance here.)

Click on the link, but yes, it is the US Supreme Court upholding the Constitutionality of a State law.

Refusal to identify oneself in the investigation of a crime is a different matter from being unable to prove identity while walking down the street, which is, by my reading, what the Arizona law would empower police to demand.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

I wonder how many white people they are going to stop? There are a bunch of people here in the US that are here on expired visas...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I wonder how many white people they are going to stop? There are a bunch of people here in the US that are here on expired visas...

Yeah, how many white people with expired visas do you figure we've deported lately? But no, it's only the illegal aliens from south of Texas that are a problem.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Why are these people playing the race card over this?

The law is the law.

If you don't legally belong in the country you need to leave.

If you do you have nothing to worry about.

Oh Heaven forbid we ruin your day by asking for your proof of citizenship after you commit a crime.

Let those idiots protest.

And what about racial profiling? Let me share with you a story of what happened when i crossed into AZ over the weekend:

Me, my brother, and my cousin were driving on the I-10 East from Los Angeles, CA to Avondale, AZ to drop off my brother who lives there. We had just crossed the AZ-CA border where a Border Patrol cruiser and truck began to follow us. We pulled into the Flying J truck stop to use the rest room and to eat. Both the cruiser and the truck followed us to the truck stop. We proceeded to use the facilities and to have some food. The truck parked a few spaces away from my car; the cruiser began to circle the lot while we ate. It took us about an hour or so to have our meal. During the entire time we ate, the cruiser kept circling the lot, waiting for us. After dinner, we proceeded to the car, and then to the adjoining gas station. We then left the truck stop. The cruiser got in right behind us. As soon as we got back onto the I-10, the cruiser started flashing his lights to pull us over. We immediately got to the shoulder and proceeded to stop. The border patrol agent approached us on the right hand side of the car. He immediately approached my cousin, who was sitting in the back seat. The first thing out of the agent's mouth was, "You in the back! What's your citizenship status?" All three of us are natural born US Citizens. All of us were born in Los Angeles, CA. The agent began to ask us all sorts of questions and didn't answer our simple question of, why he pulled us over? We asked if there was a problem. He didn't answer us. He asked where we were coming from, where we were going, and why. He was very rude, very curt to us. He was not polite at all. He asked if we had any weapons in the car. My brother had his gun, which was in a locked box, in my trunk. The agent then asked why he had a gun. And what kind of job he has that he has a gun for. It was his personal gun, since he has a CCW for Arizona. None of these questions were valid as to why he stopped us, which he never informed us WHY he stopped us. After being waylay-ed for close to half an hour, he finally let us go, after it became painfully obvious that we were all American-born citizens. So my question is: why did he stop us? Suddenly, 3 people of Mexican heritage MUST be illegal? I was not aware that so many illegal immigrants drove 04 Nissan Sentras.