Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 126
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?Page 6 of 23    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Both "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are mere terms to cover up the reality that they are subjective, depending on the cop at hand, the judicial corruption level of the county or other jurisdiction, and the xenophobic and financial needs of that community.

From what I have seen and heard from 287(g) counties, the cops, public defenders, judges, and lawyers are working in concert, ignoring civil rights abuses, condoning profiling, running a very lucrative revenue plantation for the county, and all profiting and winking and nodding through the "process". The police manipulate video and audio from an arrest with impunity. The police are always given far more weight in testimony than the accused. Most of these terrorist encounters are carefully orchestrated to outnumber the the victims with majority police testimony over the accused. Unless you have been arrested for the sins of DWB or B, driving while black or brown, in one of these ICE communities, you would not be able to relate to the terrorism that goes on in the middle of the night on the interstate, or at the border of your apartment complex or trailer park.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 127
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/8/2010 4:50:58 PM

In sum, this report concludes that DPS officers treated persons from different racial and ethnic groups unequally between July 2006 and June 2007. Minorities were more likely than whites to be searched and stopped for longer periods of time.

Well, of course, Earthpuppy-- that's what many of the supporters have been trying to say all along: this new law really changes very little from what is currently being done.



The outcry, IMO, always seems to be nearly entirely focused on Mexicans (or other central Americans) and Spanish language.

That must be what it is !
(I don't believe for a minute, being a borderline state with mexico has a darned thing to do with it !)
ROFLMAO !!



Probably because the vast ** overwhelming ** majority of people illegally crossing the border between AZ and Mexico are........... (drumroll please) Mexican looking people...

I would think this would be fairly obvious. Unfortunately nothing is obvious to some.

So... is it convenient or inconvenient that the wrongdoers in question of are of a particular ethnic appearance?

I mean, if ALL of the wrongdoers looked a certain way, that would certainly be convenient. Even better: if ALL the people that looked a certain way were wrongdoers-- that would definitely be convenient. That is a very big "if," though. So big, that believing it to be true would be the essence of racism (speaking of things that should be obvious)-- assumed guilt by physical features.

But guess what... while most of the illegals in AZ have a certain appearance, so do many of the legals and citizens. Does that make it OK for them to be hassled by the local police? Yes, we mostly agree that that is an inconvenience-- we do not agree that it is a racist inconvenience-- an inconvenience that seems to be OK with many here because it also happens to be pragmatic, relatively effective, and expedient.

Of course, if supporters would concede that "suspicion of guilt by appearance" is racism, much of this debate would be settled, and it would just boil down to "yes, I support this because sometimes racism is effective" or "no, I do not support this because racism is never acceptable."
 zipdy
Joined: 1/21/2010
Msg: 128
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/8/2010 9:03:43 PM
we need an ELECTRIFIED 12 foot tall brick wall from brownsville texas to a quarter of a mile out into the pacific ocean at san diego guarded and patolled by the military with deadly force authorized.

i'll help pay for it with a special tax. we gotta keep these people out.

they are destroying our country.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 129
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/8/2010 10:41:48 PM

So, either we have a law which purposely violates the rights of natural born citizens (an unacceptable outcome for this just as it is unacceptable for other crimes)...

Or we have a law which is utterly ineffective for its stated purpose (meaning it is just vote-grabbing window dressing at best and racially motivated at worst, another unacceptable basis for a law)...


Exactly. Seems like the only choice is to scrap any and all immigrations laws since they are completely unenforceable. Which is actually a bit scary because it can be applied to lots of other laws.


Undercover Calgary police officers used racial profiling when they singled out a black man in baggy jeans amid dressier patrons while conducting a drug sting at a bar, a provincial court judge ruled Friday.

Although there was no dispute Ahmed Mohamud Faqi sold crack cocaine to the police, Justice Heather Lamoureux stayed the charges against him because she said he was en-trapped by the officers.

In a written judgment, Lamoureux said the officers didn't have a reasonable suspicion that Faqi was doing anything wrong -- the legal test they needed to meet before approaching him inside Melrose Cafe & Bar on Aug. 30, 2008.

"In essence, the police in this case were profiling the accused based on his clothing and the colour of his skin," Lamoureux wrote.


So the whole trick to being a drug dealer is to look like a drug dealer. Same with living illegally in AZ. Just make sure you really look Mexican. They can't touch you then.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 130
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 12:47:21 AM

In a written judgment, Lamoureux said the officers didn't have a reasonable suspicion that Faqi was doing anything wrong -- the legal test they needed to meet before approaching him inside Melrose Cafe & Bar on Aug. 30, 2008.
So the whole trick to being a drug dealer is to look like a drug dealer.

Generally speaking, if a cop directly ASKS you to commit a crime, especially if they ask FIRST... The chances of an entrapment defense go way up... That's not an example of ineffective law, it's an example of ineffective policing... The cops blew that arrest and they should have known better... All they had to do was let him approach them first (they can even encourage it by "advertising" their interest in drugs in a generic way) or wait until they saw him conduct a transaction...

Exactly. Seems like the only choice is to scrap any and all immigrations laws since they are completely unenforceable.

Only the 'bad' ones, the vote-grabbing window dressing and racially motivated ones, like the Arizona one... The others are enforceable if the racists can manage to keep their cool and do it right instead of f*cking it up...

Law in a democracy isn't supposed to be 'iron-clad' in stopping or preventing crime... It's supposed to have the flexibility that allows some guilty to go free if necessary to avoid unjust treatment of the innocent... That's part of what makes a free country, a free country... They usually teach that in civics, or used to anyway...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 131
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 6:46:33 AM
"we need an ELECTRIFIED 12 foot tall brick wall from brownsville texas to a quarter of a mile out into the pacific ocean at san diego guarded and patolled by the military with deadly force authorized. i'll help pay for it with a special tax. we gotta keep these people out.
they are destroying our country."

A few flaws in this sort of reasoning. A 12 foot brick wall is easily breached with a sledge hammer, rope or ladder. Bricks are poor conductors of electricity BTW.. Then there are boats, as witnessed by Cuban immigrants. The military is broke, and the use of "deadly force" will involve the death of innocent people.

Then there is the fact that I doubt very much if you are willing to work in the meat packing plants, work in the chemically soaked fields where our food comes from, be willing to load up your tree planting bags and slog all day long swinging a hoedag, do the most strenuous parts of the construction industry, or most of the jobs being taken up by immigrant labor now. I've done all these jobs, but that was a time when the workforce of the US was willing to work hard and sweat for an honest days' pay. Rather than "destroying this country", it would be more accurate to say "they" are feeding, building and maintaining this country while being a significant and growing segment of consumer spending. Until we target the DEMAND for the services of illegals by targeting the employers, and the lazy domestic work force, not a lot will change.

Immigrants are not responsible for the real things that are destroying this country. They did not bankrupt us when we embarked on the oil wars, did not cause the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the S&L and sub-prime loan crisis, the greed on Wall Street, the outsourcing of jobs to the 4 corners of the world, did not expose us to tens of thousands of commonly used chemicals that are poisoning us all, shred our constitution, or provide the pundits on the radio, TV or blogs that divide us and spew hatred for one another. We are doing exceedingly well at destroying this country without any imported help or outsourcing.

The US becoming to much like other nations who targeted a minority as a scapegoat for their nations' woes. First the scapegoating, profiling, rounding up, and then the death camps. Apache helicopters aren't much different than machetes or gas chambers when dealing with minorities.
 sweetest
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 132
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 8:53:42 AM

And I'm assuming you would have no problem with you being confronted by police about being a "suspected" member of a terrorist "Christian" militia... And expected to prove you weren't... Just because the vast majority of "Christian" militia terrorists are white skinned... Right...?


Correctamundo amigo.

If I lived in an area of the state or country where the OVERWHELMING majority of 12 - 20 MILLION crazy azz white boy christian militia groups were infiltrating the country, yes, I would expect to be questioned being I am your typical, light skinned, light haired, blue eyed gringo.


If asians started to bombard the WEST coast in the millions illegally getting into the country through California and Oregon, I honestly do not think the border patrol would focus their resources on the EAST coast looking for and asking white folks or hispanic folks for ID. Kinda counterproductive to dealing with the issue dont`cha think ?


Ok I get the above...but

...what bothers me, isn't the fact that Arizona enacted this law, but that other states that do NOT have major illegal immigration issues are also seeking to enact the law.

To borrow a phrase from Chris Matthews..."What's with that?"^^^^

Regional justifications for sweeping the streets of any and all in in the practice of doing due diligence, can seem to be a legitimate price and risk for those in that living in those affected areas, but the more pressing question is what exactly is the other agenda that this is legislation hiding aside from border control? edited.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 133
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 11:05:48 AM
Can't wait to see the walls around all the individual states, with checkpoints, roadblocks, Stazi patrolling the streets and backroads, employing spies and informants, doing indefinite detentions, coercing family members to turn in family members, torturing the "truth" out of citizens, shooting people on both sides of the WALL, the lovely towers with machine guns, tapped phone lines, cameras everywhere, and all of us feeling soooo safe and secure then.

That tingly feeling will usually be a taser or a battery attached to your privates. If/when it happens, remember; it's what you wanted.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 134
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 4:27:46 PM

Why does enforcing a law or enacting a new law that will only truly affect those who broke the law to begin with bother you ?

What, specifically, do you mean by "will only truly affect"...?

Do you mean that a natural born citizen who is locked up as a suspected illegal (becaues he refused to "carry his papers", whatever those are since this law doesn't establish what is acceptable proof to allay "suspicion of being illegally present") isn't "truly affected" if he is let go EVENTUALLY...?

Do you mean that natural born citizens won't be "truly affected" because any of them who don't APPEAR hispanic won't likely be asked to prove their legal status...?

Or do you mean something else...? And what would that be...?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 135
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 5:58:10 PM

a natural born citizen who is locked up as a suspected illegal (becaues he refused to "carry his papers", whatever those are since this law doesn't establish what is acceptable proof to allay "suspicion of being illegally present")


That's not true from what I've read. The law says pretty clearly that a valid state driver's license or other state issued id is enough to take away any reasonable suspicion of illegal status.



The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0nTyKgjGS


There are less requirements for carrying "your papers" with you than in this state law which still requires all immigrants to have green cards, work visas etc. So actually this law seems pretty well crafted to me and may actually cut some people a break. Unless carrying a DL is too much of a burden. Even if it is too much to expect, state authorities can verify the status of anybody with with federal officials. I don't know how long this would take, but it seems like something that should easily be accomplished within minutes. So when people say stuff like this....


Can't wait to see the walls around all the individual states, with checkpoints, roadblocks, Stazi patrolling the streets and backroads, employing spies and informants, doing indefinite detentions, coercing family members to turn in family members, torturing the "truth" out of citizens, shooting people on both sides of the WALL, the lovely towers with machine guns, tapped phone lines, cameras everywhere, and all of us feeling soooo safe and secure then.


it just seems a bit like "taking the ball and running with it".
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 136
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 5:58:43 PM
So, a citizen who is questioned without having certain documents on his person (that a citizen is technically not required to have) can be subject to arrest and detention? Well, ok, as long as it's only the Mexican-looking citizens.

And as long as the police dutifully enforce this law as required by this law without overstepping their authority. I don't want them to get in trouble for not enforcing this law or enforcing it too zealously...
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 137
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 6:28:53 PM
I don't want them to get in trouble for not enforcing this law or enforcing it too zealously...


I'm not sure if they've editted this portion of the bill or not, but in its original form, every jurisdiction is required to enforce the law so that no county becomes a safe haven for illegals. Police departments can be sued for not doing enough. That seems a bit spooky.


So, a citizen who is questioned without having certain documents on his person (that a citizen is technically not required to have) can be subject to arrest and detention? Well, ok, as long as it's only the Mexican-looking citizens.


Sarcasm? I think it's pretty clear that you do not have to provide anything to police other than your name which can be attached to warrants, to addresses, to immigration status or to absolutely nothing... UNLESS you're suspected of being involved in a crime or if you are in a car. If there is reasonable suspicion to believe a crime is taking place, many states already have laws that force you to stop and identify yourself and you can be arrested if you fail to do so. So being suspected of illegally entering AZ and having to show ID is basically no different than procedures in many other states.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 138
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 6:29:47 PM
"Anyone who falls under suspicion and cannot provide an Arizona driver's license, tribal identification, passport or green card (could be) subject to arrest and detention."

and


a natural born citizen who is locked up as a suspected illegal (becaues he refused to "carry his papers", whatever those are since this law doesn't establish what is acceptable proof to allay "suspicion of being illegally present")

That's not true from what I've read. The law says pretty clearly that a valid state driver's license or other state issued id is enough to take away any reasonable suspicion of illegal status.

The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0nTyKgjGS

Well then... Here is a link to the ACTUAL law... And, as we all know, the actual and real text of the law is FAR preferrable to any quote from a newsstory about it...

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Perhaps you can show me exactly where in that law it states any such thing... Hmmm...?

Now, assuming that it even were in the law AS WRITTEN and AS POSTED by the state, which it isn't, how does that still mean that natural born citizens who don't carry such proof will not be "truly affected"...?

What if the person is a non-driving (so logically doesn't necessarily have a driver's licence), non-status Indian (so logically doesn't have a tribal ID) who has never been out of Arizona (so logically has no need of a passport) and is a natural born citizen (so logically doesn't have a green card)...? Will a credit card be enough...?

And, again, since when are natural born citizens required to carry ANY proof of natural born citizenship, and therefore, legal presence...?

So, tell me again how natural born citizens WON'T be "truly affected" and ONLY criminals will be "truly affected"...? And now that you CAN'T find the argument you posted in the ACTUAL law, meaning it isn't true, what exactly do you mean by "truly affected"...?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 139
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 7:01:00 PM

What if the person is a non-driving (so logically doesn't necessarily have a driver's licence), non-status Indian (so logically doesn't have a tribal ID) who has never been out of Arizona (so logically has no need of a passport and is a natural born citizen (so logically doesn't have a green card)...? Will a credit card be enough...?


State issued id cards. Duh. Good luck even getting a credit card or using a credit card or opening a bank account without a valid photo id.


Perhaps you can show me exactly where in that law it states any such thing... Hmmm...?


Perhaps you can show me where the law says anything about legal determination of status. It's pretty long, though plainly written but I don't think it says anything about what constitues proof of legal status OTHER THAN...


25 THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).


Which says that the INS will work with state agents to determine status. A positive ID is required by INS to determine status and so I'm guessing that is why a state issued id is considered valid in determining immigration status. Other than that, simply because the law as written says nothing about what police can use to determine status, doesn't mean they can't accept a driver's license.


And, again, since when are natural born citizens required to carry ANY proof of natural born citizenship, and therefore, legal presence...?


If by ANY proof, you mean valid photo id like a driver's license which is what's required in AZ, when they're suspected of committing a crime...just like this law suggests is the only time law enforcement in AZ can ask for such proof.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 140
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 7:27:18 PM
If by ANY proof, you mean valid photo id like a driver's license which is what's required in AZ, when they're suspected of committing a crime...just like this law suggests is the only time law enforcement in AZ can ask for such proof.

THAT applies ONLY if they already have PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest or issue a citation on the basis for which YOU WERE ORIGINALLY STOPPED... NOT on the basis of "suspicion" of illegal status (for which lack of proof of status is likely to be ruled 'probable cause')... Creating, of course, a "catch 22" for natural born citizens, who DO NOT have to prove their natural born status as a matter of everyday course...

Perhaps you can show me where the law says anything about legal determination of status. It's pretty long, though plainly written but I don't think it says anything about what constitues proof of legal status OTHER THAN...

25 THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Which is exactly part of the problem... Natural born citizens aren't subject to registration or scrutiny under '8United States Code s. 1373(c)... Their natural born status can not be verified this way... Hence, they remain indefinitely detained, if arrested under suspicion of "being unlawfully present"... And even if such status were verifiable in that way, the natural born citizen, who doesn't have to carry proof of such status, can still arrested and detained indefinitely pending verification...

State issued id cards. Duh.

Other than a D/L, you mean...? And what other "state issued ID" does EVERY natural born citizen of Arizona HAVE to carry with them, lack of which is grounds to detain them pending verification of natural born status...?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 141
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 7:27:49 PM
Perhaps you can show me exactly where in that law it states any such thing... Hmmm...?


You must be looking at the original version of the law. It does state clearly that a AZ DL is valid proof of immigration status.


A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification



Well then... Here is a link to the ACTUAL law... And, as we all know, the actual and real text of the law is FAR preferrable to any quote from a newsstory about it...


So now you have the actual law.


Other than a D/L, you mean...? And what other "state issued ID" does EVERY natural born citizen of Arizona HAVE to carry with them, lack of which is grounds to detain them pending verification of natural born status...?


You're not getting it. Nobody born in the US has to carry anything with them other than their name. It's just when you start breaking the law that you have to carry id or risk being detained. If you're not suspected of breaking the law, off you go, don't worry about it. If you're suspected of breaking the law, then in several other states, every pasty white American has to have ID or they're held until they get some. Now if you're breaking the law in AZ, same thing.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 142
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 7:39:01 PM
Just do not get caught going out for the paper, going to the park, riding your bicycle, playing with the kids in the neighbors yard, swimming in the public pool, stopping by the corner grocery, or any number of places without your ID card, especially if you have a brown complexion. I frequently violate this new mandate. There was once a 4th ammendment that allowed citizens to move freely without fear. But that was the pre 9/11 world, the pre-Reichstag Amerika. Today it's the brown ones...tomorrow???
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 143
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 7:46:29 PM
You must be looking at the original version of the law. It does state clearly that a AZ DL is valid proof of immigration status.



A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification

Granted... Apparently it was the law before these additional amendments, subsequent to the FIRST SET of amendments, were added... The link I gave only contains the first set of amendments...

Neither here nor there for the natural born citizen... The issues I mentioned still apply... If they DON'T have the required ID... And there is not 'probable cause' to arrest on the basis of the ORIGINAL REASON THEY WERE STOPPED... They may still be held indefinitely... In fact, the second set of amendemnts now include that which you tried to claim couldn't be done...

ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.

And, as a result, this still applies...

Natural born citizens aren't subject to registration or scrutiny under '8United States Code s. 1373(c)... Their natural born status can not be verified this way... Hence, they remain indefinitely detained, if arrested under suspicion of "being unlawfully present"... And even if such status were verifiable in that way, the natural born citizen, who doesn't have to carry proof of such status, can still arrested and detained indefinitely pending verification...

And on WHAT basis are natural born citizens REQUIRED to carry ID to establish their NATURAL BORN status as a matter of course...?

You're not getting it. Nobody born in the US has to carry anything with them other than their name. It's just when you start breaking the law that you have to carry id or risk being detained. If you're not suspected of breaking the law, off you go, don't worry about it. If you're suspected of breaking the law, then in several other states, every pasty white American has to have ID or they're held until they get some. Now if you're breaking the law in AZ, same thing.

Ummm... The law still makes reference to "any lawful contact"... That includes a "loud music" or a "lawn maintenance" type of complaint... Is that REALLY a valid basis for arresting someone for "suspicion of being unlawfully present" for not producing proof of natural born status (even though they obviously have a residence to have generated a "loud music" or "lawn maintenance" type complaint)...?

You're not getting it. Nobody born in the US has to carry anything with them other than their name. It's just when you start breaking the law that you have to carry id or risk being detained. If you're not suspected of breaking the law, off you go, don't worry about it. If you're suspected of breaking the law, then in several other states, every pasty white American has to have ID or they're held until they get some. Now if you're breaking the law in AZ, same thing.

No, what isn't getting across here is that "being unlawfully present" is something you can be arrested for EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE probable cause to arrest you for the original reason for the "contact"... You can be arrested for "being unlawfully present" by virtue of not having proof of status, SEPARATELY from the original cause for contact... EVEN IF you CAN"T be arrested for the original reason for the contact... In short, even if they don't have grounds to hold you "until identity is established" for the original reason they stopped you, you can still be arrested for not having proof of natural born status, which you DO NOT have to carry as a matter of course if you are natural born...
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 144
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 8:48:24 PM

Where I am from, you don't get arrested for doing those things.

That is not the assertion. It is important to remember that "legal contact" can be legitimately made for loitering, jaywalking, littering, and moving violations on a bicycle (no DL required). The original act may not be an arrestable offense, but the lack of proper ID may be cause for detention of some sort.

For cops of questionable ethics or zealousness, this law does make a difference-- it gives them even more authority than before-- in fact, a mandate, and, conversely, less recourse for the "suspect." We all know how certain "offenses" can be overlooked-- a rolling stop at a stop sign on a bicycle, for instance. I just don't think such things will be overlooked if the "perpetrator" has that certain "illegal" appearance.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 145
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 8:50:27 PM
Just do not get caught going out for the paper, going to the park, riding your bicycle, playing with the kids in the neighbors yard, swimming in the public pool, stopping by the corner grocery, or any number of places without your ID card, especially if you have a brown complexion.


Good lord what is the ef up with this. You can still happily do all these things without one shred of ID on you. However you can't break the law while playing with your kids or swimming in public. This is no different than the horrible oppresion imposed on whities all over the land (actually 24 states).


If they DON'T have the required ID... And there is not 'probable cause' to arrest on the basis of the ORIGINAL REASON THEY WERE STOPPED... They may still be held indefinitely...


The original reason to stop a person suspected of a crime must be lawful in the first place. So if there was no reason to stop the person (the person was innocent), the immigration requirements would not be pertinent nor would they stand in court. Cops can't detain people without serious indications of a crime being committed. As well, there still must be reason to detain someone based on suspected immigration status. If someone appears to be legally residing in AZ, if there is no reason to further suspect illegal status, then they must be released. If the cop goes to court and says, "well, the guy had no ID and he had brown skin". The cop will be crucified. There must be other indications of suspected illegal status. This guy says it better....


The Arizona law, by contrast (to existing federal laws), does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person's immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific "reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien. Under Section 1983 of Title 42, United States Code, state law enforcement officers may be sued if they deprive a person of any rights, privileges or immunities to which the Constitution entitles him. Police officers who enforce the law in bad faith, who harrass people without a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed, are liable to civil suit. The legal, financial, and professional consequences of violating the civil rights laws can be very damaging.


So it seems to me you're covered. No one's rights are going to get trampled here. In reality, in 50 out of 50 states, you can be unlawfully detained by cops whether you're white, brown or black, citizen or not.


but the lack of proper ID may be cause for detention of some sort.


It already is in some states.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 146
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 9:41:21 PM

You can still happily do all these things without one shred of ID on you.

Again, you are missing his point, and mine:
"It is important to remember that "legal contact" can be legitimately made for loitering, jaywalking, littering, and moving violations on a bicycle (no DL required). "

"I just don't think such things will be overlooked if the "perpetrator" has that certain "illegal" appearance."

This is no different than the horrible oppresion imposed on whities all over the land (actually 24 states).

As Earthpuppy has previously pointed out, what looks equitable on the books is often not enforced in a colorblind fashion, shall we say? I.e. "whities" often receive wider latitude than others when it comes to law enforcement. In any case, this is about the law in AZ, not whatever law in 24 states you ambiguously reference.

If someone appears to be legally residing in AZ

Now I'm curious: what does that look like without ID (see below)?

If the cop goes to court and says, "well, the guy had no ID and he had brown skin". The cop will be crucified.

Imagine our relief. Does the phrase "plausible deniability" mean anything to you?

This guy says it better....

According to his words (interpretation), it seems that AZ police are being put in a sticky mandated enforcement/bad faith enforcement connundrum-- as I referenced in an earlier post.

It already is in some states.

If this is FYI, it is (as I said earlier) irrelevant to the current discussion of this AZ law. If it is being used as a justification, it is an appeal to popularity fallacy. At least it is evidence that you read my last post, which would be hard to believe otherwise.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 147
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 9:41:28 PM
The original reason to stop a person suspected of a crime must be lawful in the first place. So if there was no reason to stop the person (the person was innocent), the immigration requirements would not be pertinent nor would they stand in court.

But it does NOT require probable cause, arrest does... Therefore, they can stop you without probable cause to arrest... and even though the stop does not produce probable cause to arrest on the original reason... They can still demand "proof of status" without probable cause to arrest... and they can arrest if it isn't provided (meaning that failure to produce "your papers" is considered probable cause to arrest for "being unlawfully present") even for natural born citizens... And they can detain indefinitely (because proof is required for release)...



....
As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien.
....

So it seems to me you're covered. No one's rights are going to get trampled here. In reality, in 50 out of 50 states, you can be unlawfully detained by cops whether you're white, brown or black, citizen or not.

While it may not be STATED as simply as "he was brown" or "he wore an 'I Love Tiajuana'" t-shirt... Neither does it have to be specific enough to be used as evidence... Demeanor, such as "he was behaving nervously, wouldn't make eye contact, etc..... is often enough, in combination, to satisfy "reasonable suspicion"... They just have to be able to describe what reasonably seemed nervous or unusual to them... And if you don't have "your papers" with you (because you are a natural born citizen who doesn't have to), you can now be arrested because not providing proof of status is enough to do that under this law...
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 148
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/9/2010 11:00:30 PM

And they can detain indefinitely (because proof is required for release)...


Again, not at all true. Six months is the maximum anyone can be held for not providing ID. Seriously though, if you can't provide anything with your name on it by then, you're not here legally or you have much larger problems than immigration issues.


Demeanor, such as "he was behaving nervously, wouldn't make eye contact, etc..... is often enough, in combination, to satisfy "reasonable suspicion"...


That's so not true either. Concrete evidence must be supplied. For example, shifting eyes etc while failing to provide concrete answers to questions can absolutely constitute probable cause to suspect illegal status. There are many different scenarios and lines of questioning that will indicate probable cause or not. I think a lot of this law has yet to be written. I think there are a whole bunch of cases yet to hit the court for interpretation and as that process occurs, it will likely get much clearer in its mandate.


Again, you are missing his point, and mine:
"It is important to remember that "legal contact" can be legitimately made for loitering, jaywalking, littering, and moving violations on a bicycle (no DL required). "


Well yeah. Those are illegal activities.


As Earthpuppy has previously pointed out, what looks equitable on the books is often not enforced in a colorblind fashion, shall we say? I.e. "whities" often receive wider latitude than others when it comes to law enforcement. In any case, this is about the law in AZ, not whatever law in 24 states you ambiguously reference.


So it's an enforcement issue? Crooked cops? So we should abandon all of the otherwise helpful laws? How do you fix that? Ambiguous states are those with "stop and identify" laws. Sorry.


Does the phrase "plausible deniability" mean anything to you?


Yes.


If this is FYI, it is (as I said earlier) irrelevant to the current discussion of this AZ law.


Does the phrase "common law" mean anything to you?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 149
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/10/2010 4:49:59 AM

That's so not true either. Concrete evidence must be supplied.

Which is exactly what I said... I'll repeat it...

Demeanor, such as "he was behaving nervously, wouldn't make eye contact, etc..... is often enough, in combination, to satisfy "reasonable suspicion"... They just have to be able to describe what reasonably seemed nervous or unusual to them...



And they can detain indefinitely (because proof is required for release)...



Again, not at all true. Six months is the maximum anyone can be held for not providing ID.

So, keeping a natural born citizen in detention for up to 6 months for "not hving his paper" is OK... Now perhaps we have different standards as to what is reasonable or "indefinite"... But to me anywhere from a few hours to up to 6 months is pretty indefinite and very unreasonable... Especially for a natural born citizen whose only "offense" is "not having his papers" in a democratic society...

Seriously though, if you can't provide anything with your name on it by then, you're not here legally or you have much larger problems than immigration issues.

"Larger problems" like refusing to be forced to provide proof of natural born status 'on demand'...? Would a utility bill be sufficient in your mind...? It has name AND address after all...? What about the registration/contract for my cell phone (of course, I didn't have to prove I was legal to get it)...?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 150
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/10/2010 5:30:45 AM

"Larger problems" like refusing to be forced to provide proof of natural born status 'on demand'...?


It's pretty easy to go to jail if you really want to.


Would a utility bill be sufficient in your mind...? It has name AND address after all...? What about the registration/contract for my cell phone (of course, I didn't have to prove I was legal to get it)...?


That's just silly. But to entertain your question, not having any form of ID as a natural born citizen is actually reason enough to suspect illegal activity because most people do have ID. This law isn't based on virgin legal grounds. There have been cases already in other states that deal with these issues.


BOSTON, Mass. – On Feb. 4, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a U.S. District Court decision in favor of Rhode Island State Trooper C. Thomas Chabot and against a group of illegal aliens that challenged his actions during a traffic stop in which he inquired into their immigration status, contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and transported them to ICE, in what they claimed was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The ACLU filed the action on behalf of the illegal aliens.


In short, the supreme court decided that a state cop acted fairly and that


“Probable cause exists when the circumstances, ‘viewed from the vantage point of a prudent, reasonable, cautious police officer … guided by … experience and training’ are sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe that the individual had committed or was committing a crime.

Citing United States v. Ortiz, the court stated, “The Supreme Court has made it clear that officers can ‘draw reasonable inferences from the facts in light of their knowledge of the area and their prior experience …’”


And here is a definition of what constitutes probable cause in a case like what would be typical in Arizona.


. . .by the time Officer Chabot asked about Plaintiffs' immigration status, he knew that: (1) Plaintiffs were headed to work; (2) most were unable to produce any identification,and of the four who did, two could produce only identifications issued by the Guatemalan consulate; and (3) they spoke little English. Officer Chabot also testified that passengers, of whom he requests documentation as a matter of routine, are able to produce valid identification more than 99 percent of the time. All of these facts combined may well have sufficiently heightened his suspicions for him to believe that he could shift his inquiry from the traffic stop to investigating other potential criminal activity. See Chhien, 266 F.3d at 6 ("[W]hile an officer's actions must bear some relation to the purpose of the original stop, he may shift his focus and increase the scope of his investigation by degrees if his suspicions mount during the course of the detention.").


Understandably each situation will be different, but ultimately we rely on cops to make fair judgments when applying the law in all cases. I think that in reality, the AZ law is actually more fair for illegals in that it sets some standards for enforcement. You now know what you need to get by. For natural born citizens, legal aliens, or otherwise valid entrants, it's not unreasonable to have ID with you as 99% of the time, people who come into contact with cops do have ID. And in several states it has been deemed constitutional for cops to detain you in an investigation until you can provide ID.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?