Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

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

If that category is "people who might attract undue attention from law enforcement officers" then quite possibly, yes.

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.

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.

The law uses the phrase "lawful contact", which appears to apply to situations where the officer has probable cause (ie, legal grounds to stop, detain, or arrest the individual.) That could be a traffic violation, or it could be a reasonable suspicion that the individual was committing or had committed a crime ("...Mr Jones matched Mrs Smith's description of the man who took the gnome from her garden...")

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.

I don't think that every police officer in Arizona is going to be harrassing illegals, and I don't know where you got the impression that I do.

I have certainly never suggested that ALL the police officers in Arizona WILL be "out to get all the illegals".

However, I think it's possible that SOME officer COULD use this law in a manner that its opponents worry about.

It seems possible to me that some officer could demand to see papers under the flimsiest legal pretext, if he were so inclined, and that the individual under suspicion might not have the knowledge or resources to challenge the circumstances under which this demand was made.

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.

A few posts ago I speculated that these "friendly chats" could be used by law enforcement officers as means of fishing for probable cause. For example, perhaps you could get police reports that go "...after conversing with Mr Jones, I became of the belief that he may be under the influence of a controlled substance..."

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'm not sure why you think I'm "assuming all kinds of things about the Arizona police". I'm not. I'm sure that the very large majority of the Arizona police are good people who would not use this law in a manner it's not intended. However, it's not what nice officers would do with this law that has people worried.

If our belief in that this law will not be used unjustly is contingent on the benevolence of the individual officers who will be carrying it out, that should be a red flag.

-k

Edited by kimmy

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

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

....If our belief in that this law will not be used unjustly is contingent on the benevolence of the individual officers who will be carrying it out, that should be a red flag.

Non-starter...this would apply to many laws enforced by police departments. See "DWB"....Driving While Black.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Non-starter...this would apply to many laws enforced by police departments. See "DWB"....Driving While Black.

Wait, you're saying that the police sometimes stop people under dubious legal pretext because of their appearance??

That might happen in other places, my friend, but surely you can't be talking about Arizona, the state where all the cops are kindly and racial profiling is against the law.

-k

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

Guest American Woman
Posted (edited)
Wait, you're saying that the police sometimes stop people under dubious legal pretext because of their appearance??

That might happen in other places, my friend, but surely you can't be talking about Arizona, the state where all the cops are kindly and racial profiling is against the law.

Perhaps you misunderstood what was said. I pointed out that this type of thing goes on all the time, and those who were inclined to single out Mexicans would do so with or without this law. Since the cops cannot question anyone that they have not "stopped, detained, or arrested," the person in question must first be doing something illegal. In case you missed my link earlier, here it is again. If there is a tendency to stop them for DWM (Driving While Mexican), they have to first be doing something wrong and a driver's license will put them in the clear; the cops cannot question anyone's immigration status if they produce a valid drivers' license. If they don't have one, then they (rightfully) can be questioned.

I can understand your concern, though, since you've been so outspoken against racially profiling Muslims at security in airports. ;)

Edited by American Woman
Posted

Perhaps you misunderstood what was said. I pointed out that this type of thing goes on all the time, and those who were inclined to single out Mexicans would do so with or without this law. Since the cops cannot question anyone that they have not "stopped, detained, or arrested," the person in question must first be doing something illegal. In case you missed my link earlier, here it is again. If there is a tendency to stop them for DWM (Driving While Mexican), they have to first be doing something wrong and a driver's license will put them in the clear; the cops cannot question anyone's immigration status if they produce a valid drivers' license. If they don't have one, then they (rightfully) can be questioned.

I can understand your concern, though, since you've been so outspoken against racially profiling Muslims at security in airports. ;)

Not responding does not change reality that you have said the following people are wrong and you and your link are right:

  • 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-/

Guest American Woman
Posted (edited)
American Woman, on 26 May 2010 - 10:32 AM, said: Perhaps you misunderstood what was said. I pointed out that this type of thing goes on all the time, and those who were inclined to single out Mexicans would do so with or without this law. Since the cops cannot question anyone that they have not "stopped, detained, or arrested," the person in question must first be doing something illegal. In case you missed my link earlier, here it is again.

Not responding does not change reality that you have said the following people are wrong and you and your link are right: [...]

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

Did you even read the article I linked to? Not once, but twice? The article linked in the quote you included in your response? I have to assume not, since your link is about a discussion that took place on April 26, and my link is about a clarification of the law, signed on April 30. Hard to discuss on April 26 what took place on April 30.

Edited by American Woman
Posted

Perhaps you misunderstood what was said. I pointed out that this type of thing goes on all the time, and those who were inclined to single out Mexicans would do so with or without this law.

ha ha, sure. Monday the law against racial profiling was supposed to be some sort of protection for Hispanics in Arizona, but Wednesday it just goes on all the time.

Since the cops cannot question anyone that they have not "stopped, detained, or arrested," the person in question must first be doing something illegal. In case you missed my link earlier, here it is again.

If there is a tendency to stop them for DWM (Driving While Mexican), they have to first be doing something wrong and a driver's license will put them in the clear; the cops cannot question anyone's immigration status if they produce a valid drivers' license. If they don't have one, then they (rightfully) can be questioned.

They don't have to know for a fact that the person is doing something illegal to "stop" them, they just have to have a reasonable belief that the person is doing something illegal. That's a point that in practice can be stretched thin. Particularly if this law includes, as your article indicates, that civic bylaws are included in the reasons a law officer may demand proof of citizenship.

There are plenty of experts who don't share your rosy view of it. And by the way, your attempt to dismiss Naomi's article because it was published 4 days before the law was signed is ridiculous. Are you under the impression that the law was a secret before April 30 and nobody got to look at it prior to it being signed?

I can understand your concern, though, since you've been so outspoken against racially profiling Muslims at security in airports. ;)

First off, airport security is a lot different from the situation we're talking about, so you're making a painful stretch in trying to compare the two.

Secondly, my concern here is not racial profiling, it is the potential for police to demand documentation under flimsy legal pretext that I find upsetting. That in this instance the victims are likely to be brown is not my issue with this, it is the potential of abuse of authority.

Thirdly, is there a thread you'd like to direct my attention to? Have you found prior comments of mine that you believe contradict what I'm saying here? Or are you just questioning my integrity because it makes you feel smart?

-k

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

Posted

....Secondly, my concern here is not racial profiling, it is the potential for police to demand documentation under flimsy legal pretext that I find upsetting. That in this instance the victims are likely to be brown is not my issue with this, it is the potential of abuse of authority.

Why is it "upsetting"? The police could (and still can) stop damn near anybody for a host of reasons. Why is the potential detection and prosecution of illegals any different? Where were the tears for homeless people, blacks, latinos, natives, etc. who are routinely subjected to such scrutiny? The "abuse of authority" now includes proof of motor vehicle liability insurance....oh my! ;)

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

If a state makes a law that's unconstitutional, what is the normal time frame/process for it to be found thus? I'm wondering because this law hasn't been challenged legally until this week by the administration. Is it normal to take this long for some kind of legal action to be initiated? Does anyone know their history on this?

Posted

If a state makes a law that's unconstitutional, what is the normal time frame/process for it to be found thus? I'm wondering because this law hasn't been challenged legally until this week by the administration. Is it normal to take this long for some kind of legal action to be initiated? Does anyone know their history on this?

Normally the law has to be challenged in court by someone with "standing". So that means there would have to be a police/prosecution action and lower court rulings first. However, the Feds could sue directly on other constitutional grounds. Illegals can be deported administratively with a different process for court challenges.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Guest American Woman
Posted
First off, airport security is a lot different from the situation we're talking about, so you're making a painful stretch in trying to compare the two.

Of course it's "different;" and the difference is that you support racial profiling when it comes to Muslims and airport security, but you're oh-so-concerned about the possibility of "racial profiling" when it comes to illegals in a country that doesn't concern you at all.

Secondly, my concern here is not racial profiling, it is the potential for police to demand documentation under flimsy legal pretext that I find upsetting. That in this instance the victims are likely to be brown is not my issue with this, it is the potential of abuse of authority.

Of course it's not "racial profiling." Because the "abuse of authority" by police is so much different from the "abuse of authority" by airport security. :rolleyes:

Thirdly, is there a thread you'd like to direct my attention to? Have you found prior comments of mine that you believe contradict what I'm saying here? Or are you just questioning my integrity because it makes you feel smart?

Nope. I don't feel the need to direct your attention to any particular thread. If you can't remember what you've said, so be it. But imagine my shock that you've resorted to such a juvenile response: Or are you just questioning my integrity because it makes you feel smart?

Yeah, it makes me "feel" real "smart" to "question [your] integrity." You need to grow up and get over yourself. And not necessarily in that order. ;)

Posted

...but you're oh-so-concerned about the possibility of "racial profiling" when it comes to illegals in a country that doesn't concern you at all.

While it may not necessarily be your own practice, I hope you realize how ironic it sounds for an American to lecture anyone on countries not of their concern.

Guest American Woman
Posted

While it may not necessarily be your own practice, I hope you realize how ironic it sounds for an American to lecture anyone on countries not of their concern.

So whenever I'm posting, or discuss a topic, or state my view, or point out the irony of someone else's comments, I should be aware of what "Americans," or more to the point, of what you think "Americans practice?" Yes, indeed. I should always be aware of the "irony" of what I think vs what "Americans" think. It's an American's duty to do so. And of course when I point out the irony of someone else's actual POV, I am "lecturing" to do so. Got'cha. ;)

Posted
... but you're oh-so-concerned about the possibility of "racial profiling" when it comes to illegals in a country that doesn't concern you at all.
While it may not necessarily be your own practice, I hope you realize how ironic it sounds for an American to lecture anyone on countries not of their concern.
So whenever I'm posting, or discuss a topic, or state my view, or point out the irony of someone else's comments, I should be aware of what "Americans," or more to the point, of what you think "Americans practice?" Yes, indeed. I should always be aware of the "irony" of what I think vs what "Americans" think. It's an American's duty to do so. And of course when I point out the irony of someone else's actual POV, I am "lecturing" to do so. Got'cha. ;)

whoa! You get pressed and turn turtle with your prissy statement, "in a country that doesn't concern you at all", implying... what? That Canadians have no position to, no right to, comment on U.S. domestic issues? Should we hold you to your same standard going forward in regards Canadian domestic concerns?

Posted

The concern trolls commenting on the so-called racial profiling obviously haven't read the actual Arizona Illegal immigration law.

Go away concern trolls.

Posted

you support racial profiling when it comes to Muslims and airport security

I don't recall ever having said that, and I've searched for it using the forum search engine and had no luck either. I think you're mistaken.

Of course it's "different;" and the difference is that you support racial profiling when it comes to Muslims and airport security, but you're oh-so-concerned about the possibility of "racial profiling" when it comes to illegals in a country that doesn't concern you at all.

Au contraire! I am deeply concerned about the United States and all of my American friends.

And again, my concern here is not the issue of racial profiling.

Of course it's not "racial profiling." Because the "abuse of authority" by police is so much different from the "abuse of authority" by airport security. :rolleyes:

Yes, walking or driving about town and going about your business is very different from voluntarily presenting yourself to security personnel.

Nope. I don't feel the need to direct your attention to any particular thread. If you can't remember what you've said, so be it. But imagine my shock that you've resorted to such a juvenile response: Or are you just questioning my integrity because it makes you feel smart?

Yeah, it makes me "feel" real "smart" to "question [your] integrity." You need to grow up and get over yourself. And not necessarily in that order. ;)

Coming from you, "grow up" is pretty funny. You might be a grandmother, but you're still the biggest infant on this forum.

-k

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

Posted

whoa! You get pressed and turn turtle with your prissy statement, "in a country that doesn't concern you at all", implying... what? That Canadians have no position to, no right to, comment on U.S. domestic issues? Should we hold you to your same standard going forward in regards Canadian domestic concerns?

Uh oh...

I smell a BC bomb to snap you out of your "smug" "know it all" "ungrateful" Canadian attitude!!!!

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

Uh oh...

I smell a BC bomb to snap you out of your "smug" "know it all" "ungrateful" Canadian attitude!!!!

Or, it will have some passing reference to 'our' failed empire, our unimportance, and our overall fascination with the US.

Posted

Or, it will have some passing reference to 'our' failed empire, our unimportance, and our overall fascination with the US.

You forgot the use of the "word" wannabe...

and...

"We kicked your ass...so...Take your throne and shove it!"

or...

"Go cry to mommy( Micheal Jean) to solve your problems"...

And the obligatory...

:P:lol::lol:

and the occasional ;) as if to pretend he/she (there is some question as to its gender and its geographical whereabouts...Queen of Saskatchewan keeps coming up) really does'nt mean it...

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

Why is it "upsetting"? The police could (and still can) stop damn near anybody for a host of reasons. Why is the potential detection and prosecution of illegals any different? Where were the tears for homeless people, blacks, latinos, natives, etc. who are routinely subjected to such scrutiny? The "abuse of authority" now includes proof of motor vehicle liability insurance....oh my! ;)

There's been lots of tears shed for the homeless people and non-white folks who are subjected to undue scrutiny from police. Lots of news articles, lots of politicians, lots of threads right here at this forum.

The fact that police are able to find ways to harass minorities if they wish to illustrates the point, but it's not the point in itself. The point is that when police interact with you in an official capacity, the scope of their actions should be limited to what they've stopped you for.

If a policeman stops me for speeding, he's entitled to find out everything he needs to know regarding my status as an operator of that vehicle (my identity, my ownership of the vehicle, the status of my license, my insurance, etc.) But he has no business asking me to open up my laptop because he wants to search it for pirated software.

A police officer shouldn't be able to stop someone for jaywalking or loitering and use that as a means of investigating that person for anything other than jaywalking or loitering. I don't like the idea that a stop for speeding or jaywalking could be used by a police officer as an excuse to do a body search or gain access to someone's home or car. I realize that in practice a police officer may be able to invent excuses to do all of these things, maybe even excuses that would stand up in a court of law, but philosophically it does not sit well with me.

The idea that police officers should check citizenship in addition to investigating the incident they've stopped the person for is at odds with what I think is appropriate scope of investigation when a policeman stops someone.

-k

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

Posted (edited)

There's been lots of tears shed for the homeless people and non-white folks who are subjected to undue scrutiny from police. Lots of news articles, lots of politicians, lots of threads right here at this forum.

Point of order: lots of "white people" are subject to "undue" scrutiny as well. This forum is a minor and late entry to the game, when mayors in American cities unleashed aggressive "Code 4" policies to clean up the streets. NYC is a notable example.

The fact that police are able to find ways to harass minorities if they wish to illustrates the point, but it's not the point in itself. The point is that when police interact with you in an official capacity, the scope of their actions should be limited to what they've stopped you for.

Except that it isn't....the stop is an opportunity for detection of many things to "protect and serve". Police are authorized to ask for access to motor vehicles and homes for search in lieu of a warrant.

If a policeman stops me for speeding, he's entitled to find out everything he needs to know regarding my status as an operator of that vehicle (my identity, my ownership of the vehicle, the status of my license, my insurance, etc.) But he has no business asking me to open up my laptop because he wants to search it for pirated software.

He/she does if there is reason to suspect it is stolen property, used in distracted driving, or otherwise involved in unlawful actions.

A police officer shouldn't be able to stop someone for jaywalking or loitering and use that as a means of investigating that person for anything other than jaywalking or loitering. I don't like the idea that a stop for speeding or jaywalking could be used by a police officer as an excuse to do a body search or gain access to someone's home or car. I realize that in practice a police officer may be able to invent excuses to do all of these things, maybe even excuses that would stand up in a court of law, but philosophically it does not sit well with me.

Doesn't matter whether you like it or not...the practical challenges of police work requires such interactions and behaviours born of experience. Perps behave differently than non-perps.

The idea that police officers should check citizenship in addition to investigating the incident they've stopped the person for is at odds with what I think is appropriate scope of investigation when a policeman stops someone.

Why? Illegal residency is a crime, despite the political or social implications. What part of "illegal alien" do you find inappropriate? As in other criminal arrests, the police just make the first step in the deportation process. As for citizenship verifications, I am routinely subjected to such challenges as a matter of employment, ironically because of illegals!

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
whoa! You get pressed and turn turtle with your prissy statement, "in a country that doesn't concern you at all", implying... what? That Canadians have no position to, no right to, comment on U.S. domestic issues? Should we hold you to your same standard going forward in regards Canadian domestic concerns?

Uh oh...

I smell a BC bomb to snap you out of your "smug" "know it all" "ungrateful" Canadian attitude!!!!

Or, it will have some passing reference to 'our' failed empire, our unimportance, and our overall fascination with the US.

You forgot the use of the "word" wannabe...

and...

"We kicked your ass...so...Take your throne and shove it!"

or...

"Go cry to mommy( Micheal Jean) to solve your problems"...

And the obligatory...

:P:lol::lol:

and the occasional ;) as if to pretend he/she (there is some question as to its gender and its geographical whereabouts...Queen of Saskatchewan keeps coming up) really does'nt mean it...

for several weeks now, my impenetrable MLW ignore force shield has stood fast - stood firm... against B_C2004 bombs! However, in the spirit of piling on, let me add =>

"
Serbia bombing! Don't forget about bombing Serbia!!!
"

some days back, can't remember who wrote it... a thoughtful perspective was offered on B_C2004's schtick... one that spoke to his repeated MLW conditioning... to the ongoing exhibition of B_C2004's Pavlovian responses. That being said, in the interest of furthering research, one might be tempted to lower the MLW ignore force shield... tempted...

Posted

You're not gonna get rid of illegal immigrants if you don't look for them.

We're not going to stop software and movie piracy if we don't look for them either. Would you support a bill that allows a police officer to search your cell-phone, media-player, or computer for stolen media as part of routine stops? It's illegal so they ought to be investigating it at every chance, right? If picking you up for jaywalking is their only chance to see if you've got pirated movies, they ought to make the most of it, shouldn't they? People who aren't carrying stolen media would have nothing to fear!

-k

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

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...