logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> SB 1070 reasonable suspicion?, Your papers please
Christopher
post Apr 21 2010, 07:34 AM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,352
Member No.: 1,696
Joined: November-9-03

From: Phoenix AZ
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



SB1070


QUOTE


1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

2. Requires the person's immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.



What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Hair color? Skin color? Accent?

Is this Constitutional?

Do you support this action?

Exactly whom has the power to do this? an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision????
That sounds pretty broad to me.

I'll come right out of the gate and say clearly for the record i think this is racist fearmongering garbage. I suppose i should be appreciative of the courage by so many politicians to finally be honest about their white power leanings and giving the bigots of this state the long awaited path back to the good old days of Whites Only. I expect it on our state welcome signs soon enough.

I find this to be a complete and utter betrayal of what America stands for and so far beyond the pale of what should be supported by civilized and intellgent Americans. The politicians of AZ should have just gone ahead and added in provisions for having Americans of Latin descent, tattooed and made to wear identifying brown stars on their chests.
Perhaps we could go back to the good old days of reservations or camps so we can keep an eye on them.

If you are a Latino and you are in the state of AZ never ever leave home without your ID even if you are just going to check your mail. Would hate for you to find yourselves incarcerated til you can come up with sufficient proof.

What is proof anyways? Driver's ID? Yeah there is real solid proof. Like fake IDs never happen. Birth certificates? How about we establish a state and federal DNA database that you can be tested against.
It would be to keep us all safe and for our own good. yeah that's the ticket.

If this isn't quickly shot down by the courts i personally would have to argue this country has officially jumped the shark.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
58 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Raptavio
post Apr 21 2010, 02:30 PM
Post #2


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat




What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Hair color? Skin color? Accent?
According to the bill, it's up to the officer's discretion, which means being Hispanic and speaking Spanish are likely going to be the primary factors.

Is this Constitutional?
Prima facie, no, it's a blatant violation of the fourth amendment.

Do you support this action?
As I am not a racist, no, I completely oppose it.

Exactly whom has the power to do this? an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision???? That sounds pretty broad to me.
Due to the language of the bill, presumably those with the ability to effect legal arrests would be so empowered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lo rez
post Apr 21 2010, 03:04 PM
Post #3


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 387
Member No.: 10,616
Joined: August-8-09

From: Minneapolis, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



Do you support this action?

This bill would create a situation where any citizen of Arizona could be arrested until he/she could prove their citizenship. A police state? No, I can't support that.

I kinda want to say yes but only if the proof of citizenship comes in the form of some kind of mark on the right hand or on the forehead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Apr 21 2010, 03:42 PM
Post #4


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Hair color? Skin color? Accent?

What constitutes reasonable suspicion when a policeman thinks someone has drugs? Or is driving drunk?

What constitutes reasonable suspicion for an employer to conduct drug testing?

The grounds are much the same. Suspicious behavior, commission of a crime, and in this case, not speaking English. I realize that millions of legal Americans do not speak English very well, including millions of native born US citizens. However, encouraging integration into the English speaking United States would not be a bad thing. You simply cannot succeed economically in the US without speaking English (unless you are a professional athlete).

What this would do is to give a basis for checking anyone arrested for whatever reason for their immigration status.

No. This would not turn us into Nazi Germany or South Africa where the expression "papers please" instilled terror into people. My guess is that this is needed in order for state law enforcement to investigate the legal status of people in their custody.

Is this Constitutional?

I don't see why not. Of course, implementation could be un-Constitutional depending on how reasonable suspicion is applied.

Do you support this action?

Some estimates have the number of illegals in Arizona alone at 500,000. Why haven't these people followed the process to be here legally? Are they paying taxes? Are they receiving state benefits?

The charge of racism is ridiculous. Of course Mexicans are being targeted but not because they are Hispanic. They are targeted because they are Mexicans and not Americans and they are criminals.

The federal government is not doing enough to curb illegal immigration. This bill also targets employers who use illegals as a workforce. Something needs to be done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 21 2010, 04:03 PM
Post #5


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 21 2010, 11:42 AM) *
What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Hair color? Skin color? Accent?

What constitutes reasonable suspicion when a policeman thinks someone has drugs? Or is driving drunk?

What constitutes reasonable suspicion for an employer to conduct drug testing?

The grounds are much the same. Suspicious behavior, commission of a crime, and in this case, not speaking English.


Hm. I have to disagree. Unless a person is acting drunk or high, no policeman is going to question them and demand a urine test simply for sitting on a bench in the park. And employers are already obligated to check immigration status of those they employ aren't they? "Reasonable suspicion" doesn't necessarily mean "inability to speak English" either. It takes years and years to learn how to speak the language properly, and the accent never goes away...my mother has been here for 40 years now and still has a very strong accent.

This legislation is much much too broad. It gives the policemen the ability to detain and question any person 'of suspicion' anywhere. I'd support the occasional road-block check (like the border patrol stations they have here in N Mexico), or the questioning and detaining of vagrants on private property if the owner wants them off or out. Don't want to be in a situation where an immigrant can squat in your yard or home and you can't get them out (happens in some parts of Europe). The rest is excessive.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 21 2010, 04:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lo rez
post Apr 21 2010, 04:26 PM
Post #6


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 387
Member No.: 10,616
Joined: August-8-09

From: Minneapolis, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 21 2010, 10:42 AM) *
The grounds are much the same. Suspicious behavior, commission of a crime, and in this case, not speaking English. I realize that millions of legal Americans do not speak English very well, including millions of native born US citizens. However, encouraging integration into the English speaking United States would not be a bad thing. You simply cannot succeed economically in the US without speaking English (unless you are a professional athlete).


I think we need to vote no-confidence across the entire Arizona Legislature if they can't come up with a better way to encourage the adoption of English than the threat of incarceration.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Apr 21 2010, 05:20 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 21 2010, 12:03 PM) *
This legislation is much much too broad. It gives the policemen the ability to detain and question any person 'of suspicion' anywhere. I'd support the occasional road-block check (like the border patrol stations they have here in N Mexico), or the questioning and detaining of vagrants on private property if the owner wants them off or out. Don't want to be in a situation where an immigrant can squat in your yard or home and you can't get them out (happens in some parts of Europe). The rest is excessive.

Where does it say that an officer of the state can simply stop someone and demand their papers? It doesn't.

QUOTE
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.


That means if you go to apply for unemployment or welfare or get stopped for another reason. It does not give state officials a new reason for questioning people, only an extra step to follow if they already have legitimate contact with the person.

Arizona has 6.5 million people. If 500,000 are there, that means that 1 out of ever 14 persons is an illegal. If 1 out of every 14 people were a drug dealer, I think we'd have even more strict enforcement of drug laws and more rigorous attempts to figure out who is breaking the law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Apr 21 2010, 05:20 PM
Post #8


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 21 2010, 10:42 AM) *
What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Hair color? Skin color? Accent?

What constitutes reasonable suspicion when a policeman thinks someone has drugs? Or is driving drunk?

What constitutes reasonable suspicion for an employer to conduct drug testing?

The grounds are much the same. Suspicious behavior, commission of a crime, and in this case, not speaking English. I realize that millions of legal Americans do not speak English very well, including millions of native born US citizens. However, encouraging integration into the English speaking United States would not be a bad thing. You simply cannot succeed economically in the US without speaking English (unless you are a professional athlete).


Empirically false. Commission of a crime is NOT a prerequisite for checking immigration status under this bill, nor is any "suspicious" behavior other than appearing to be a foreigner.

Also to note - English is not the legally recognized official language of these United States. You cannot have as a basis for a law a desire to encourage speaking a language which this nation does not recognize as its sole official language.

QUOTE
What this would do is to give a basis for checking anyone arrested for whatever reason for their immigration status.

No. This would not turn us into Nazi Germany or South Africa where the expression "papers please" instilled terror into people. My guess is that this is needed in order for state law enforcement to investigate the legal status of people in their custody.


"In their custody" - Again, your "guess" is empirically false. "Papers please" is factually accurate, if hyperbolic in its Nazi allusions. Anyone who is "reasonably suspected" (read: speaking a foreign language or appearing to be Mexican) of being illegal can be stopped at any time and compelled to show proof of legal status or citizenship under threat of arrest.

QUOTE
Is this Constitutional?

I don't see why not. Of course, implementation could be un-Constitutional depending on how reasonable suspicion is applied.


Are you familiar with the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? Is it Constitutional for YOU to have to carry proof of citizenship everywhere you go?

QUOTE
Do you support this action?

Some estimates have the number of illegals in Arizona alone at 500,000. Why haven't these people followed the process to be here legally? Are they paying taxes? Are they receiving state benefits?

The charge of racism is ridiculous. Of course Mexicans are being targeted but not because they are Hispanic. They are targeted because they are Mexicans and not Americans and they are criminals.


Again, empirically false. Any American of Hispanic descent, particularly one who prefers to speak Spanish, is also directly in the crosshairs of this bill and will be forced to carry proof of citizenship at all times or risk arrest, whether they are Americans, Mexicans, or neither. And it is thus blatant racism.

QUOTE
The federal government is not doing enough to curb illegal immigration. This bill also targets employers who use illegals as a workforce. Something needs to be done.


Perhaps so, but it does not follow that this particular something needs to be done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 21 2010, 05:53 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 21 2010, 01:20 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 21 2010, 12:03 PM) *
This legislation is much much too broad. It gives the policemen the ability to detain and question any person 'of suspicion' anywhere. I'd support the occasional road-block check (like the border patrol stations they have here in N Mexico), or the questioning and detaining of vagrants on private property if the owner wants them off or out. Don't want to be in a situation where an immigrant can squat in your yard or home and you can't get them out (happens in some parts of Europe). The rest is excessive.

Where does it say that an officer of the state can simply stop someone and demand their papers? It doesn't.

QUOTE
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.


That means if you go to apply for unemployment or welfare or get stopped for another reason. It does not give state officials a new reason for questioning people, only an extra step to follow if they already have legitimate contact with the person.


Guess it depends what qualifies as 'legitimate contact'?

QUOTE
11. Specifies that, in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is:
a) present on any public or private land in the state and
b) is not carrying his or her alien registration card or has willfully failed to register.


The above would seem to qualify 'legitimate contact' as "Hey you!" from a policeman in a public park. It's contact, and 'legitimate' if there's 'reasonable suspicion' that the person is an illegal immigrant thereby 'trespassing' in 'any public or private land in the state'. Not much space outside of publicly and privately held land left to stand on.

Edited to add: We posted at the same time, thanks for the link below. i'll look at it and see.

Pretty much states the same as far as I can tell:
QUOTE
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.


Depends on the definition of lawful contact. If it's a state crime to be on state grounds (or private grounds) and that alone is cause for detention if they 'look like an illegal' and don't have their card...how is that appreciably different from what I stated in my first post? It does seem to give the policemen the ability to detain and question any person 'of suspicion' anywhere (public or private grounds).

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 21 2010, 06:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Apr 21 2010, 05:55 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Raptavio, perhaps you should read the actual law instead of simply making up what you think it says. I can't find anywhere authorizing a new search or seizure or detention of an individual other than in the normal course of a state employee's business.

They did make it a state crime to be on state lands while being an illegal immigrant. This allows them to detain someone whose only crime is being an illegal (since that is a federal law) if they can't hold them for anything else.

They do explicitly state that anyone stopped for a traffic violation is subject to an ID check. That implies there would be other times when an ID could not be demanded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Apr 21 2010, 06:23 PM
Post #11


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 21 2010, 12:55 PM) *
Raptavio, perhaps you should read the actual law instead of simply making up what you think it says. I can't find anywhere authorizing a new search or seizure or detention of an individual other than in the normal course of a state employee's business.

They did make it a state crime to be on state lands while being an illegal immigrant. This allows them to detain someone whose only crime is being an illegal (since that is a federal law) if they can't hold them for anything else.

They do explicitly state that anyone stopped for a traffic violation is subject to an ID check. That implies there would be other times when an ID could not be demanded.


Perhaps instead of being condescending you could look at the post directly above yours and realize that, empirically, you are wrong. I notice you realize this and you're walking it back already, having retreated from your position that it would affect only those "in federal custody".

Let's also look at some details.

From Page 1:
QUOTE
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©.


And:

QUOTE
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.


In legalese, these two clauses mean that any state or municipal government official MUST demand proof of legal immigration status or citizenship whenever 'legal contact' is made (e.g., any time you're in public) with someone who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant (eg, being brown and speaking Spanish), and there is no prohibition on that 'legal contact' being for the sole purpose of checking someone's immigration status, and that if the person cannot provide said evidence, that person may be arrested without a warrant (because being an illegal immigrant is a 'public offense that makes the person removable from the United States'). Oh, and also, other clauses indemnify any police officer from doing things like randomly checking any immigrant on the street for his papers. Lovely.

Your sole fig leaf of defense against this is to claim that failure to produce proof of legal residency does not constitute probable cause under this bill -- it's very clear that it is, however, intended to be just that.

An analysis by the ACLU:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/ACLUAZImmig.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Apr 21 2010, 06:48 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Apr 21 2010, 01:20 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 21 2010, 10:42 AM) *
What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Hair color? Skin color? Accent?

What constitutes reasonable suspicion when a policeman thinks someone has drugs? Or is driving drunk?

What constitutes reasonable suspicion for an employer to conduct drug testing?

The grounds are much the same. Suspicious behavior, commission of a crime, and in this case, not speaking English. I realize that millions of legal Americans do not speak English very well, including millions of native born US citizens. However, encouraging integration into the English speaking United States would not be a bad thing. You simply cannot succeed economically in the US without speaking English (unless you are a professional athlete).


Empirically false. Commission of a crime is NOT a prerequisite for checking immigration status under this bill, nor is any "suspicious" behavior other than appearing to be a foreigner.

Also to note - English is not the legally recognized official language of these United States. You cannot have as a basis for a law a desire to encourage speaking a language which this nation does not recognize as its sole official language.


Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what empirical means. What I've said cannot possibly be empirically false since we have not observed the law being put into action. If we observe officers demanding papers from people walking down the street, THEN it would be empirically false that officers will not be able to simply stop people on the street.

I don't know about you, but I haven't seen (and I'll assume you haven't seen from Minnesota) this law in effect.

The law explicitly states what must be done when an officer of the state has legitimate contact with someone who might be an illegal immigrant.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Apr 21 2010, 01:20 PM) *
"In their custody" - Again, your "guess" is empirically false. "Papers please" is factually accurate, if hyperbolic in its Nazi allusions. Anyone who is "reasonably suspected" (read: speaking a foreign language or appearing to be Mexican) of being illegal can be stopped at any time and compelled to show proof of legal status or citizenship under threat of arrest.


You've empirically seen this? Perhaps a YouTube video is available? Not speaking English may or may not be a reasonable cause for suspicion. The court would have to decide that.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Apr 21 2010, 01:20 PM) *
Are you familiar with the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? Is it Constitutional for YOU to have to carry proof of citizenship everywhere you go?


Law breakers are entitled to due process as are non-law breakers. We have not seen how this will be put into effect. One of the main concerns in Arizona is illegals receiving government services to which they aren't entitled. I haven't seen anyone campaigning for rounding up anyone who has a dark brown complexion. Have you?


QUOTE(Raptavio @ Apr 21 2010, 01:20 PM) *
Again, empirically false. Any American of Hispanic descent, particularly one who prefers to speak Spanish, is also directly in the crosshairs of this bill and will be forced to carry proof of citizenship at all times or risk arrest, whether they are Americans, Mexicans, or neither. And it is thus blatant racism.


Being from Mexico is not a basis of racial discrimination. The problem here is one of people from a certain region of the world being in this country illegally. It is not racist to target people who are actually breaking the law.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Apr 21 2010, 01:20 PM) *
Perhaps so, but it does not follow that this particular something needs to be done.

What do you propose, oh empirical one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Apr 21 2010, 07:18 PM
Post #13


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 21 2010, 01:48 PM) *
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what empirical means. What I've said cannot possibly be empirically false since we have not observed the law being put into action. If we observe officers demanding papers from people walking down the street, THEN it would be empirically false that officers will not be able to simply stop people on the street.

I don't know about you, but I haven't seen (and I'll assume you haven't seen from Minnesota) this law in effect.

The law explicitly states what must be done when an officer of the state has legitimate contact with someone who might be an illegal immigrant.


No, it says LEGAL contact.

"Empirical" means that something is a statement of fact capable of being disproved through observation or experimentation. Empirically, the requirement for 'arrest' appears nowhere in the bill and thus your claim that it is a requirement is false. Your efforts to say "Well you don't know how it will be implemented..." is nothing more than dissembling, your usual path for covering your inability to defend your assertions.

QUOTE
You've empirically seen this? Perhaps a YouTube video is available? Not speaking English may or may not be a reasonable cause for suspicion. The court would have to decide that.


Courts will almost certainly dial back this law (first and foremost, the power to make warrantless arrests) but we are speaking of the powers granted to the police under the bill as written. You are engaging in more dissembling by trying to say that it might be used to less of an extent than it is currently written to do.

QUOTE
Law breakers are entitled to due process as are non-law breakers. We have not seen how this will be put into effect. One of the main concerns in Arizona is illegals receiving government services to which they aren't entitled. I haven't seen anyone campaigning for rounding up anyone who has a dark brown complexion. Have you?


Oh, heavens, yes. Fortunately their voices aren't particularly relevant. However, I'm surprised your position continues to be "trust the government to implement this in a fair and responsible manner" - you would never give a bill written for an ostensible liberal purpose such benefit of the doubt.

QUOTE
Being from Mexico is not a basis of racial discrimination. The problem here is one of people from a certain region of the world being in this country illegally. It is not racist to target people who are actually breaking the law.


There are two ways to read what you just wrote. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and choose the more charitable interpretation:

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that only those who are actually illegal will be subject to demands to prove their legal status and arrest if they fail to do so. While I understand that may be comforting to your conscience, surely you realize that there's no way that can be how this law is applied - since only by making this demand can one determine legal status. So it does, in fact, directly target anyone who appears to be from another country, because it cannot only target illegals.

The less charitable way to read what you wrote is that you are saying that since most illegals are Mexican, that targeting Mexicans is just fine. I'm going to assume that's not what you meant.

QUOTE
What do you propose, oh empirical one?


I think it's a good idea to require proof of legal status in order to receive government services like getting a drivers' license, registering to vote, applying for unemployment, etc. I think it's fine to check the legal status of someone arrested for another crime. I also think it's absolutely fine to deport those who are thusly determined to be here illegally. I also think it's a dandy idea to punish employers who knowingly (or through willful negligence) employ illegals. But to set up a law where people have to carry proof of legal status everywhere they go is simply a bridge too far and a violation of the rights of citizens and legal noncitizen residents alike.

Oh, and to add:

It is an exceptionally BAD idea to require proof of legal status when interviewing witnesses to crimes, or when a victim of a crime (say, a rape victim) reports said crime to the police, for very obvious reasons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Apr 21 2010, 07:44 PM
Post #14


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
I think it's fine to check the legal status of someone arrested for another crime.


How do you define “crime”. How about a traffic violation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Apr 21 2010, 09:05 PM
Post #15


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



What did I tell you about the GOP and minorities?

You can't fix stupid. laugh.gif

What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Hair color? Skin color? Accent?
God only knows.

Arizona just made it official a police officer can arrest anyone in the state for any reason. Go small government!


Is this Constitutional?
Tough to say. After the stats on implementation (which are bound to be lopsided) come in it's probably going to be an equal protection violation. Unreasonable search and seizure maybe?

Do you support this action?
I shouldn't swear...

QUOTE(Christopher)
I'll come right out of the gate and say clearly for the record i think this is racist fearmongering garbage. I suppose i should be appreciative of the courage by so many politicians to finally be honest about their white power leanings and giving the bigots of this state the long awaited path back to the good old days of Whites Only. I expect it on our state welcome signs soon enough.

I find this to be a complete and utter betrayal of what America stands for and so far beyond the pale of what should be supported by civilized and intellgent Americans.

Dead on true but this...

QUOTE(lo rez)
I think we need to vote no-confidence across the entire Arizona Legislature if they can't come up with a better way to encourage the adoption of English than the threat of incarceration

For The Win

We all know who this is for and we all know that "civilized and intelligent" is the furthest thing from their minds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Apr 21 2010, 10:15 PM
Post #16


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Apparently this law doesn't give officials the right to determine immigration status for anyone they come into contact with - it only gives them the authority to do so if they ALSO have a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

What, exactly, would provide the basis for "reasonable suspicion"? The fact of application for a driver's license or some kind of state aid? Because they ran a red light? Simple presence on state land?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Apr 22 2010, 03:57 AM
Post #17


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Apr 21 2010, 03:15 PM) *
Apparently this law doesn't give officials the right to determine immigration status for anyone they come into contact with - it only gives them the authority to do so if they ALSO have a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

What, exactly, would provide the basis for "reasonable suspicion"? The fact of application for a driver's license or some kind of state aid? Because they ran a red light? Simple presence on state land?


Yes. And I think we know what the reasonable suspicion will be. Amlord is either being willfully obtuse or genuinely naive. Anyone who's seen the other side of the law knows how easy it is for cops to stop whoever they want. And he has to know, at least, that once this is in effect, brown-skinned latinos are going to have to carry some proof of citizenship with them whenever they leave the house.

This is the sort of law that doesn't allow abuse - it invites abuse. It begs to be abused. Heck, the people who support this sort of big brother statism won't even see it as abuse. They'll see it as fulfilling its purpose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ataal
post Apr 22 2010, 08:36 AM
Post #18


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 354
Member No.: 674
Joined: April-17-03

From: Phoenix, Arizona
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



I figured I'd put my two cents in here since I live here in Arizona.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been conducting raids on illegal hot spots for quite a while now. This bill just gives him the okay to keep doing it legally. Every once in a while, you'll turn on the local news and find out 21 people were arrested and that "16 of which were illegal". Interesting spin, right? Hey, great, we got 16 of them, but what about the other 5? Other than being Hispanic, what was their crime? Were they held in jail until they could determine their immigration status? If they did, in fact, commit some type of crime, probable cause would certainly come into question in a trial considering the raid was for illegal immigrants.

Another portion of the bill that makes me uneasy is the part about transportation:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summ...070pshs.doc.htm

QUOTE
Unlawful Transporting

22. Specifies that it is unlawful for a person to do or attempt to do the following if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the U.S. in violation of law:
a) transport or move an alien in Arizona in a means of transportation;
b) conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in Arizona, including any building or means of transportation.

23. Stipulates it is unlawful to encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in Arizona if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law.

24. Subjects a means of transportation used in the commission of a violation to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment.

25. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors and subjects offenders to fines of at least $1,000, except that a violation that involves 10 or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony with a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien who is involved.


So, I get charged with a class 1 misdemeanor and have to pay $1,000 if I don't check the papers of everyone I let in my car or house? Okay, technically they have to prove that I knew they were here illegally. Still, I know quite a few people that are here illegally. After all, we do have a very high percentage of them here. It's probably very unlikely that anyone that lives here doesn't know at least one.

For the record, I am in favor of immigration reform. This problem has spiraled out of control. However, I am vehemently against Arpaio and his tactics. Let's get the job done, but let's do it right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Apr 22 2010, 11:24 AM
Post #19


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 21 2010, 01:55 PM) *
Raptavio, perhaps you should read the actual law instead of simply making up what you think it says. I can't find anywhere authorizing a new search or seizure or detention of an individual other than in the normal course of a state employee's business.
I think this part of the bill is interesting:
Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:
ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
...

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
No warrant is needed if there is probable cause to believe that a deportable offense has been committed. What sorts of offenses are included here? What makes a person deportable? Doesn't the mere fact of illegal presence do so?

U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part IV, Section 1227:
(a) Classes of deportable aliens
Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:
(1) Inadmissible at time of entry or of adjustment of status or violates status
(A ) Inadmissible aliens
Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.
(B ) Present in violation of law
Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201 (i) of this title, is deportable.
So, in Arizona, you can be arrested anywhere, any time, without a warrant if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe you are in the U.S. illegally. This is not just when you have some "lawful contact" with authorities, this is any time, anywhere, no warrant.

What observable actions or conditions could possibly establish such "probable cause"? And, if the law enforcement officer has "probable cause" (which I think is stronger than mere "reasonable suspicion" - help me out here lawyers!), why remove the need to obtain a warrant?

This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Apr 22 2010, 11:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Apr 22 2010, 02:23 PM
Post #20


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Probable cause is a much higher standard than reasonable suspicion.

No court in this country is going to accept "hey he has brown skin and was speaking Spanish" as probable cause of being an illegal. That might pass the reasonable suspicion test since as I have pointed out 1 out of every 14 people (approximately) in Arizona is an illegal alien.

QUOTE(Raptavio)
I think it's a good idea to require proof of legal status in order to receive government services like getting a drivers' license, registering to vote, applying for unemployment, etc. I think it's fine to check the legal status of someone arrested for another crime. I also think it's absolutely fine to deport those who are thusly determined to be here illegally. I also think it's a dandy idea to punish employers who knowingly (or through willful negligence) employ illegals. But to set up a law where people have to carry proof of legal status everywhere they go is simply a bridge too far and a violation of the rights of citizens and legal noncitizen residents alike.


You and I are very much in agreement here. What you have done, however, is project how law enforcement will implement that last part. You foresee people randomly being asked for ID and I don't.

You have to understand the causes which drove Arizona to passing this law. Illegal immigration is rampant. There is a perception that illegals are more prone to crime. There have been well-publicized cases such as the rancher who was killed by an illegal.

The federal government has not done enough to curb the illegal immigration problem. They haven't completed the fence on the border. Where there is a fence, crossings are down.

I don't live in a border state. I don't know any illegals. There seems to be a problem and this is a step towards fixing it. Any law that is too vigorously enforced is subject to abuse. Some say that drug laws are too vigorously enforced. Others disagree.

The law already states that if you are a legal resident alien, you have to carry your green card with you.

UCIS: "The card must be in your possession at all times. This requirement means that you are not only required to have a currently valid Form I-551 at all times, but also that you must carry your currently valid Form I-551 on your person at all times"

So resident aliens should be good to go with producing documents. Almost everyone has a driver's license or state ID and most people carry them with them. It is also a requirement to have your driver's license in your possession if you drive a car.

How is this any different than in Europe where you are required to carry your passport with you at all times and a passport is required to rent a hotel room or rental car?

So the only problem left is someone who is not driving and it not a legal immigrant. I'm sure it could happen but then I might be arrested for DUI if I have a hypoglycemic incident. It is unlikely and is highly dependent on how enforcement is done. I would not predict that law enforcement is going to arrest someone if their only possible offense is suspicion of being an illegal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

58 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 22nd, 2018 - 03:23 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.