Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Funny watching people like naomi squirm when the law of the land starts to actually be made to protect its existing population rather than to replace it. This is only a first step, the US needs more and tougher measures against illegal immigrants. There are plenty of immigrants who are willing and qualified to go through all the hoops legally if the US has any manpower shortage.

Edited by Bonam
Guest American Woman
Posted

BTW: Seems the law applies to those already pulled over for some offence. Meaning the law would target those already breaking the law.

Furthermore, there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal.

Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:

A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.

A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.

A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government. link

Posted

Anyone who cannot admit that this law is about racial profiling is kidding themselves. Racial profiling is illegal both federally and in the state of Arizona.

Except when it comes to minority owned businesses getting contracts (set asides), affirmative action in education and hiring, and census forms. LOL!

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Furthermore,

There is no 'furthermore'. The comment Dogsonporch has made, as already indicated by me, is wrong.

there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal.

How do you determine if a person is illegal? How many Mexican looking people do they have to wrongfully request papers for before you think it's not really a good program? Are illegal Mexicans always running across the border for them to look suspicious or can the police pick out a Mexican looking person walking down the street and determine that he is an illegal?

Guest American Woman
Posted (edited)

There is no 'furthermore'. The comment Dogsonporch has made, as already indicated by me, is wrong.

No. The statement made by DoP is not wrong. You are.

The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime. Link. Again. Furthermore, the police have to have "reasonable suspicion" to ask, even when they are stopped for a traffic violation or when they commit a crime. You might want to actually read the links people provide.

How do you determine if a person is illegal? How many Mexican looking people do they have to wrongfully request papers for before you think it's not really a good program? Are illegal Mexicans always running across the border for them to look suspicious or can the police pick out a Mexican looking person walking down the street and determine that he is an illegal?

Last time I checked, "walking down the street" wasn't a crime in any state, including Arizona. :rolleyes:

I already pointed out that the police have to have "reasonable suspicion" (when stopped for a traffic violation and/or committing a crime -- not just walking down the street) that someone is an illegal, and lack of a driver's licence would be such a "reasonable suspicion" when stopped for a traffic violation. I listed other valid "reasonable suspicions." You might want to go back and actually read my post.

As for your question: How many Mexican looking people do they have to wrongfully request papers for before you think it's not really a good program?

First answer mine. How many Mexican looking people have they "wrongfully" requested papers for?

Edited by American Woman
Posted

Anyone who cannot admit that this law is about racial profiling is kidding themselves. Racial profiling is illegal both federally and in the state of Arizona.

If a federal government will not enforce the laws of the land the state will.

And the state will take that right if it believes it is forced to do so.

The people of that state elected their officials to do a job and that state has the right to do as it believes proper.

Your comments about the law and racism are not only flawed they show your narrow minded and entitled attitude - which is something we have come to expect from you.

Read the law - it is short and it is simple enough that even you can understand it.

Borg

Posted

I already pointed out that the police have to have "reasonable suspicion" (when stopped for a traffic violation and/or committing a crime -- not just walking down the street) that someone is an illegal, and lack of a driver's licence would be such a "reasonable suspicion" when stopped for a traffic violation. I listed other valid "reasonable suspicions." You might want to go back and actually read my post.

No. You're wrong again. This vague term, "reasonable suspicion" can be used against anyone in any circumstance. It's not only during a traffic stop. A police officer can stop someone walking down street and ask for documents, if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal.

Guest American Woman
Posted

No. You're wrong again. This vague term, "reasonable suspicion" can be used against anyone in any circumstance. It's not only during a traffic stop. A police officer can stop someone walking down street and ask for documents, if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal.

No, they can't. But keep spreading the lie. Truth doesn't seem to be high on your list of priorities.

Posted

American Woman agrees with DogOnPorch's following comment:

BTW: Seems the law applies to those already pulled over for some offence. Meaning the law would target those already breaking the law. Do you like those breaking the law over those who do not? This is a targeting of illegal immigrants breaking the law...not ones that came into Arizona via the legal way and shopping at the Target.

Here is what PolitiFact has to say about this issue.

Arizona immigration law requires police to see a crime before checking legal status

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/john-huppenthal/arizona-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

Guest American Woman
Posted

American Woman agrees with DogOnPorch's following comment:

Here is what PolitiFact has to say about this issue.

Arizona immigration law requires police to see a crime before checking legal status

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/john-huppenthal/arizona-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

They're wrong and I provided a link saying just that.

To me this sums up the situation perfectly:

"There's hysteria out there, and people need to take a breath and see what our laws actually say, read them and understand them," Brewer said. "Our law mirrors federal law. So, why is it bad for Arizona to mirror federal law? No one was crying out in the wilderness about the federal law being wrong or racial profiling. [...]"

link

Posted

I think all of us probably disagree with the idea of police randomly walking up to people and demanding to see proof of identity. And clearly the requirement for "lawful contact" in this law is an important point that its opponents seem intent on ignoring.

My one concern here is that the concept of "lawful contact" can be stretched pretty thin. My own observation is that the police seem able to come up with justification to make contact with people if they wish to, and those that are not particularly familiar with the law may not be familiar with what they do or don't have to tell an on-duty officer who just wants to have "a nice friendly chat."

-k

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)

Posted (edited)

American Woman, you're wrong and you need to admit that you're wrong. The ambiguity of the law allows the police officer to use the excuse of reasonable suspicion to ask anyone for papers. This will go on until there are court rulings to give a more concrete definition of this vague law.

So a key question is whether there be "reasonable suspicion" about someone's legal status in the absence of a crime -- major or minor -- being committed or suspected. If the answer is yes, it would undercut Huppenthal's argument.

In discussing these questions with legal experts, we found that everyone agreed that there's some gray area that will need to be sorted out in future court decisions. That said, the general consensus was that police could indeed stop someone even in the absence of suspicion that a crime was being committed.

Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, said that law enforcement officers can use profiling rather than suspicions of a specific crime being committed.

"Police departments come up with profiles that can establish a reasonable suspicion," Spiro said. Such profiles "entitle an officer to stop someone and say, 'I'd like to ask you some questions?' The officer can then investigate, which could lead to probable cause."

And at that point, Spiro said, an immigration status check would be acceptable under the Arizona law -- even if no specific crime was witnessed or suspected. "If you came up with a profile for undocumented immigrants, that would establish reasonable suspicion, and you could stop that person even if no other crime was suspected," he said.

Furthermore, this sums up the misinformation DogOnPorch and American Woman are either unknowingly or knowingly spreading:

Huppenthal's position -- that the police must suspect that something illegal is being committed before asking someone for proof of legal status -- is not correct. The law says the police officer just needs "reasonable suspicion'' that the person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States. The police are prohibited from using a profile based solely on racial or ethnic factors, but that standard can be sidestepped. In addition, some seemingly innocuous behaviors like getting in a car or making a gesture or nodding could be seen by a law officer as "reasonable suspicion" of the newly enacted prohibition against seeking work while in the United States illegally.

The passage in the law citing racial profiling does provide some protection, as does the difficulty of defining a profile for illegal immigrants that could pass legal muster, but the law leaves open several possibilities for police questioning individuals without seeing or suspecting a specific crime. So we rate Huppenthal's statement False.

Edited by naomiglover
Guest American Woman
Posted
I think all of us probably disagree with the idea of police randomly walking up to people and demanding to see proof of identity. And clearly the requirement for "lawful contact" in this law is an important point that its opponents seem intent on ignoring.

Exactly. No one is advocating the police randomly going up to people to check their immigration status 'just because,' and it clearly will be illegal to do so.

My one concern here is that the concept of "lawful contact" can be stretched pretty thin. My own observation is that the police seem able to come up with justification to make contact with people if they wish to, and those that are not particularly familiar with the law may not be familiar with what they do or don't have to tell an on-duty officer who just wants to have "a nice friendly chat."

Police who have been so inclined have always gone up to people "just for a chat;" this law will do nothing to change that, as it doesn't allow them to do it. So with or without the law, there is a certain amount of that going on. People who feel their rights have been violated by such a chat then have the option to press charges, as this law clearly states that it's illegal to use it in any way other than it's intended.

And the fact that it mirrors the federal law, which has already been in effect, makes all the opposition even more puzzling. All this law does is give the state of Arizona the right to deal with it rather than wait for the feds. Arizona can't go against federal law, and it's not. Furthermore, as I pointed out, 17 states are proposing similar legislation, and many of them don't even border Mexico. Arizona is obviously not standing alone.

Posted

How do you determine if a person is illegal? How many Mexican looking people do they have to wrongfully request papers for before you think it's not really a good program?

Do we have any notion how many "Mexican looking people" will survive the extreme trauma of being asked for their papers? I can see how this would be such a horrifying experience that many would simply expire on the spot, while others would return home and suicide. But surely, some at least would survive.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

No. You're wrong again. This vague term, "reasonable suspicion" can be used against anyone in any circumstance. It's not only during a traffic stop. A police officer can stop someone walking down street and ask for documents, if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal.

That's not the way I read it. There has to be a reason to be in official contact with that person other than simply looking around, spotting a brownie, and immediately pouncing on him/her.

Btw, as about a third of Arizona's population are Hispanics (legally) I'd think it rather pointless for the police to harrass people at random. "Hey, you there, brown person! Show me your papers!"

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

As opposed to Bush who wanted to grant all illegal immigrants legal status? I can only assume that's because Bush was terrified of alienating the Hispanic vote too

Actually, the way Bush treated Mexico I always suspected the Mexican government had something on him, prove of cocaine use, dirty videos he took with actresses, or God knows what. But whenever the Mexicans expressed a desire for something Bush would immediately hop to it.

And FYI, half of the States have at least one city offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants, and two states offer sanctuary to them: Oregon and Maine.

Well then, problem solved. All Arizona needs to do is pick up all its illegals and bus them to Oregon and Main. No doubt those states will be brimming with thanks for the effort.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

That's not the way I read it. There has to be a reason to be in official contact with that person other than simply looking around, spotting a brownie, and immediately pouncing on him/her.

Btw, as about a third of Arizona's population are Hispanics (legally) I'd think it rather pointless for the police to harrass people at random. "Hey, you there, brown person! Show me your papers!"

All US law enforcement officials are imagined white, Protestant and having voted for McCain it would seem. All John without the Ponch...

Posted
Police who have been so inclined have always gone up to people "just for a chat;" this law will do nothing to change that, as it doesn't allow them to do it. So with or without the law, there is a certain amount of that going on. People who feel their rights have been violated by such a chat then have the option to press charges, as this law clearly states that it's illegal to use it in any way other than it's intended.

I am playing devil's advocate here... I don't really object to this law (as I understand it, at least).

A bit of background: although I have a day-job, I still waitress evenings downtown. I live in a small-to-mid-sized city that has an inexplicably large RCMP presence for its size, and a population of vagrants that likewise seems disproportionately large. And when I'm walking home from work I frequently see the RCMP chatting with the vagrants. These are not law-enforcement stops, these are "hey, buddy, where ya headed?" type conversations, again "just a friendly chat". Despite being on the street frequently after dark, I have never personally been approached by an officer for a "friendly chat". It would be a strange world if all of these police officers are more interested in being friends with the vagrants than with cute, lovable kimmy. As a result, I'm of the opinion that these "friendly chats" happen to suspicious-looking individuals, not people who look like ordinary folks. And as a result I'm of the opinion that these "friendly chats" are considered to be part of police-work, even if perhaps an unwritten part of it.

I don't have reason to believe that any of these "friendly chats" are actually for sinister purposes. I've never seen one that looked disagreeable, and I've never seen one turn into an arrest. They may be genuine attempts to become familiar with the street people, find out if everything is ok, find out whether there are problems, find out if the person needs help or information or any of that sort of thing. They might be completely well-meaning.

But (and I hate to sound like I'm taking up for naomiglover...) it's also entirely possible that the officers may also be looking for probable cause. I doubt that police officers are really that interested in finding ways to write up vagrants for minor offenses, because the paperwork alone is probably more headache than it's worth. But if they were so inclined, they probably could. And while it's possible that arrests resulting from information gained during one of these "friendly chats" could be overturned on the grounds that the officer had no cause to question the individual in the first place, it's not entirely clear, and it's unlikely that the people most likely to be affected would have either the financial resources or the legal knowledge to contest the situation anyway.

-k

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)

Posted

Would somebody please explain to me what is wrong with enforcing the law on illegal immigration for pete's sakes.

Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province

Guest American Woman
Posted (edited)
Well then, problem solved. All Arizona needs to do is pick up all its illegals and bus them to Oregon and Main. No doubt those states will be brimming with thanks for the effort.

With 17 other states proposing similar legislation, I'm guessing that will be happening. I wonder how Oregon and Maine will feel about being sanctuary states then?

Would somebody please explain to me what is wrong with enforcing the law on illegal immigration for pete's sakes.

I sure don't know. :unsure:

I thought it was funny that LA said they were going to ban all products from Arizona because of this law and Arizona said they'd cut off LA's power if they did. :P

*******

Kimmy: I'm not sure what cops talking to vagrants has to do with this law. In other words, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't know what the vagrancy laws are where you live, or in Arizona, for that matter, but I suppose if someone is loitering where they shouldn't be, it might be cause for questioning. I've seen it happen to white people under those circumstances, too, so I don't think that would be any evidence of 'racial profiling' if it did happen to some Mexicans. The law clearly states that it's illegal to engage in racial profiling in Arizona.

Edited by American Woman
Posted (edited)

....Well then, problem solved. All Arizona needs to do is pick up all its illegals and bus them to Oregon and Main. No doubt those states will be brimming with thanks for the effort.

Sure...just like this parody implies...Illegals in my yard:

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Kimmy: I'm not sure what cops talking to vagrants has to do with this law. In other words, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't know what the vagrancy laws are where you live, or in Arizona, for that matter, but I suppose if someone is loitering where they shouldn't be, it might be cause for questioning. I've seen it happen to white people under those circumstances, too, so I don't think that would be any evidence of 'racial profiling' if it did happen to some Mexicans. The law clearly states that it's illegal to engage in racial profiling in Arizona.

I mentioned the cops' "friendliness" towards vagrants in my community by way of illustrating that police can talk to people even if they don't have probable cause.

In my neighborhood, the cops seem to like talking to people who look like vagrants, but in some other town they might like talking to people who look like Mexicans.

Racial profiling might be against the law, but I don't see how they can make it illegal for a police officer to have a "friendly chat" with anyone. And if during the course of a "friendly chat" the officer was provided with probable cause, he'd at that point be able to make "lawful contact" and ask for documentation, would he not?

I think it's naomi's point, and she might be right, that it may be possible for law enforcement officers to find excuses to make "lawful contact" with people they suspect of being aliens if they so wished.

-k

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)

Guest American Woman
Posted
I mentioned the cops' "friendliness" towards vagrants in my community by way of illustrating that police can talk to people even if they don't have probable cause."

Of course they can. They always have, as I pointed out. Which is why this law isn't going to change anything. If they do it now, they've also done it before. Talking to someone doesn't require "probable cause" in Arizona, and asking them for proof of citizenship requires much more; it requires a situation that would involve "stopping, detaining, or arresting." And "stopping" doesn't mean 'stopping for a chat on the street;' it means 'stopping for a traffic violation' or some other violation.

In my neighborhood, the cops seem to like talking to people who look like vagrants, but in some other town they might like talking to people who look like Mexicans.

Because Mexicans are in the same category as vagrants? :unsure:

Racial profiling might be against the law, but I don't see how they can make it illegal for a police officer to have a "friendly chat" with anyone.

If they couldn't now, they couldn't before this law, either. So again, what's changed? The police officer can chat all he/she likes, but that's not a situation where he can legally ask for proof of citizenship. That's been made quite clear.

I think it's naomi's point, and she might be right, that it may be possible for law enforcement officers to find excuses to make "lawful contact" with people they suspect of being aliens if they so wished.

It's not "lawful contact," it's "stopping, detaining, or arresting," which an officer can't do on a whim.: he/she can only do it if the person has broken the law/is suspected of a crime.

But getting back to the "friendly chats," as we both know, this type of thing has been going on all over, well before this law came about. If some Mexicans are subjected to "friendly chats," it'll be nothing new. You and Naomi seem to be of the mind that all the police officers in Arizona are now going to be 'out to get all the illegals,' and in the process will not stop at harassing all the Mexicans. But again, it can't just be a talk on the street: ..."law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they 'stop, detain or arrest.'" It's not just anyone they happen to speak to. A friendly chat wouldn't provide them with the legal opportunity to inquire about their immigration status.

And perhaps, since illegals are breaking the law, this law is a good thing, and people could give it a chance before assuming all kinds of things about the Arizona police. Police who, since racial profiling is illegal, could be hit with a legal charge themselves if they break the law. Any one can file a charge, and if someone wanted to bring a lawsuit, there are public defenders and lawyers who work pro bono. With all the attention this law is getting, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem.

I imagine if my city had a large population of illegals and the law wasn't dealing with it, I'd be wondering why, and I can't imagine most other people not feeling the same way.

And again. This law mirrors federal law. A law that's already been in effect.

Posted (edited)

They're wrong and I provided a link saying just that.

So you are right once again and the following people are wrong?

  • Peter Spiro, law professor at Temple University
  • Kevin Johnson, dean of the law school at the University of California-Davis
  • Laura A. Hernandez, law professor at Baylor University
  • Judith Gans, program manager for immigration policy at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona
  • Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, adjunct law professor at Cornell University
  • Gabriel (Jack) Chin, University of Arizona law professor
  • Jennifer Chacon, law professor at the University of California (Irvine)

In discussing these questions with legal experts, we found that everyone agreed that there's some gray area that will need to be sorted out in future court decisions. That said, the general consensus was that police could indeed stop someone even in the absence of suspicion that a crime was being committed.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/john-huppenthal/arizona-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

Edited by naomiglover

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,854
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Hannani
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Scott75 went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Radiorum earned a badge
      Posting Machine
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...