Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

You seemed to be suggesting that nobody cared about any of this until the Arizona law came along, and that's not the case.

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.

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

And "reason to suspect" is in practice probably stretched to the limits of credibility. There's little reason to think the immigration law will work out any different, despite the claims of supporters that the law's language prevents it from being abused.

-k

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

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

You seemed to be suggesting that nobody cared about any of this until the Arizona law came along, and that's not the case.

"Anybody" would be an impossible standard to meet, but clearly there has been more interest (and outcry) because of the Arizona law on top of high profile raids and deportations by the Obama administration. In Canada you would call this different political "optics" for the exact same issue.

And "reason to suspect" is in practice probably stretched to the limits of credibility. There's little reason to think the immigration law will work out any different, despite the claims of supporters that the law's language prevents it from being abused.

That remains to be seen...citizenship, legal residency, and illegal residency have attributes that are easily determined. "Illegals" do not enjoy protection from such "abuses", and others will file complaints just as they always have.

It's not like we don't know where to find illegal aliens, or the circumstances that encourage illegal immigration. Personally, I like the Old West tradition of offering a nice bounty for information leading to arrest and deportation.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

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

If the government decides that cracking down on media piracy is such a high priority, I'd expect them to try this. However, it's generally not, and moreover there are better ways to deal with media piracy. Additionally, searching laptops and cellphones for illegal files takes much much longer (potentially hours to do a thorough job) than asking to see an ID or proof of citizenship. That makes the analogy somewhat inapplicable.

A better analogy would be allowing the police officer to check your vehicle for drugs or illegal firearms when pulled over for other reasons, like speeding. And they indeed already can do that.

Posted

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.

Just because a cop stops you for speeding that won't give him the right to search your car. On the other hand, while he's interacting with you, if he happens to see, oh, say, a big old bag of cocaine on the seat beside you, I don't feel he ought to just ignore that, any more than he should ignore the desperate thumping sound coming from your trunk. He won't ignore your alcoholic breath, or the gun stuck in your belt, and we wouldn't want him to. So why, presuming you give him cause to suspect you're in the country illegally, should he not be allowed to further investigate that?

The important phrase being "give him cause to suspect".

And I doubt any court would consider brown skin to be sufficient cause.

"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

Guest American Woman
Posted
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.

And I don't think I am, but since you're not denying it, now's the perfect time to clear the air. Do you, or don't you, support racial profiling at airports?

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

And walking or driving about town" and "going about your business" is very different from breaking the law. Once again, an officer has to have stopped, detained, or arrested someone and have probable cause on top of that in order to question someone's citizenship. Furthermore, getting on a plane to go where one is going is "going about one's business."

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

:D

I repeat. You really need to grow up and get over yourself. But fyi, I'm not a grandmother, I'm a Nana. :P

Posted

"Anybody" would be an impossible standard to meet, but clearly there has been more interest (and outcry) because of the Arizona law on top of high profile raids and deportations by the Obama administration. In Canada you would call this different political "optics" for the exact same issue.

You're certainly more familiar than I am with the reasons why this is a big political issue right now.

However, I think a reason why discussions of racial profiling or police harassment of the homeless don't generate widespread discussion is that it's easy for people to say "well, it's just one mean cop". This, on the other hand, isn't one mean cop, it's a law signed by the governor.

I also kind of agree with Shady on the premise that most of the outrage around this law is not well-informed and has been whipped up by using hot-button language like "racial profiling".

That remains to be seen...citizenship, legal residency, and illegal residency have attributes that are easily determined. "Illegals" do not enjoy protection from such "abuses", and others will file complaints just as they always have.

It's not like we don't know where to find illegal aliens, or the circumstances that encourage illegal immigration. Personally, I like the Old West tradition of offering a nice bounty for information leading to arrest and deportation.

It's not always easy to reconcile the way things would work in an ideal world, and the realities of law enforcement. Drunk driving "checkstops", for example. In principle, I object to "checkstops". That the police can stop everybody on the road without probable cause is, to me, contrary to the whole premise of due process, and I don't know how it managed to withstand legal challenge, or if it has been challenged at all. Then again, why would anybody actually challenge checkstops? In theory I find checkstops objectionable, but in practice I recognize that they probably save lives and deter drunk driving.

-k

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

Posted
If the government decides that cracking down on media piracy is such a high priority, I'd expect them to try this.

They could try this, but they'd get their asses kicked in court if they did. I expect the government's lawyers would advise them to not bother wasting their time or the public's money by even trying.

However, it's generally not, and moreover there are better ways to deal with media piracy. Additionally, searching laptops and cellphones for illegal files takes much much longer (potentially hours to do a thorough job) than asking to see an ID or proof of citizenship. That makes the analogy somewhat inapplicable.

The convenience of the demand is not the legal issue. The legal issue is whether the officer has any reasonable grounds to suspect that I might be carrying illegal media in the first place.

A better analogy would be allowing the police officer to check your vehicle for drugs or illegal firearms when pulled over for other reasons, like speeding. And they indeed already can do that.

No, they're not. Recall the Rahim Jaffer cocaine charges. There were rumors that the cocaine charges were dropped because the cocaine was in his vehicle, not on his person, which would have made the search illegal. The police vehemently denied that the cocaine was found in the vehicle and insisted it was on his person when he was arrested.

If the police are in your home on a noise disturbance call and they notice a big bag of weed on your table, they can bust you for it. If they notice the big bag of weed in a box in your bedroom closet, they can't bust you for it, because they had absolutely no business being in your bedroom closet in the first place. If they're in your house on a noise disturbance call and they happen to smell your grow-op, that probably gives them adequate legal cause to investigate the source of the smell.

-k

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

Posted

Just because a cop stops you for speeding that won't give him the right to search your car. On the other hand, while he's interacting with you, if he happens to see, oh, say, a big old bag of cocaine on the seat beside you, I don't feel he ought to just ignore that, any more than he should ignore the desperate thumping sound coming from your trunk. He won't ignore your alcoholic breath, or the gun stuck in your belt, and we wouldn't want him to.

The question is not whether he should ignore the big bag of coke on my seat, but whether he's allowed to go looking for the big bag of coke in my glove compartment. If he hears thumping coming from the trunk then absolutely he's got reason to open up my trunk. But he doesn't get to pop open my trunk on the premise that I might have a tightly bound and sedated victim stashed back there. Then again, if someone has told him that somebody who looks like me is driving around with a car full of coke and a kidnapped person in the trunk, maybe he does get to pop open my trunk.

So why, presuming you give him cause to suspect you're in the country illegally, should he not be allowed to further investigate that?

The important phrase being "give him cause to suspect".

And I doubt any court would consider brown skin to be sufficient cause.

And this is where the debate regarding this law gets complicated, because in practice it's hard to say what will give an officer sufficient cause to suspect someone may be in the country illegally, or what the courts will deem sufficient cause. There are differing opinions at this point, and I doubt any of us have the legal background to say which set of experts is right and which is wrong.

-k

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

Posted

You're certainly more familiar than I am with the reasons why this is a big political issue right now.

OK...but I just wanted to point out that some of the backlash is from Obama supporters who feel somewhat betrayed.

However, I think a reason why discussions of racial profiling or police harassment of the homeless don't generate widespread discussion is that it's easy for people to say "well, it's just one mean cop". This, on the other hand, isn't one mean cop, it's a law signed by the governor.

But its not just one "mean cop"....good police work born of experience and procedure yields more criminal arrests and keeps pressure on likely perps of petty and, ultimately, more serious crime. Blowing a stop sign or failure to signal a lane change legally opens the door to a traffic stop and further scrutiny by the police, from valid license and insurance to outstanding warrants. Police will take advantage of every opportunity to detect unlawful behaviour...everyone is a potential perp!

I also kind of agree with Shady on the premise that most of the outrage around this law is not well-informed and has been whipped up by using hot-button language like "racial profiling".

True, but the majority of polled citizens still agree with the strict enforcement of immigration law, and if the feds won't do their job, somebody else will. As I have indicated, the government itself engages in racial definition and profiling at many levels.

It's not always easy to reconcile the way things would work in an ideal world, and the realities of law enforcement. Drunk driving "checkstops", for example. In principle, I object to "checkstops". That the police can stop everybody on the road without probable cause is, to me, contrary to the whole premise of due process, and I don't know how it managed to withstand legal challenge, or if it has been challenged at all. Then again, why would anybody actually challenge checkstops? In theory I find checkstops objectionable, but in practice I recognize that they probably save lives and deter drunk driving.

I use to share your view on such checkpoints as clearly a violation of constitutional rights, but the courts have established that government has an legitimate state interest in public safety, similar to the example cited by AM concerning airliner security measures.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

....Then again, if someone has told him that somebody who looks like me is driving around with a car full of coke and a kidnapped person in the trunk, maybe he does get to pop open my trunk.

Most of the time it is not that dramatic, and a simple and very legal procedure is followed. The police officer will ask you if he/she can search the vehicle, and if you deny permission, he/she and supervisors will consider other measures (e.g. warrant, drug dog, vehicle impound). Most people know how this game is played and submit to the search if they believe they have nothing to hide. Also, in many jurisdictions, police are permitted to search the vehicle in areas under immediate control of the driver (under seat, glovebox, sun visor, etc.).

Note that the courts have been far more protective of such rights when it comes to a private residence.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Crimminal profiling should be acceptable - as should crimmal profiling through race - eventually a law enforcement person will become a skilled profiler - for instance if this was Canada - A cop learns to tell the difference between a second generational Jamacian gang banger ...and a kind and civil African immigrant. There is a difference and you can tell visually if you have the experience..as for Arizona - This boarderless state has had problems that the federal government has been ignoring for years because congressmen and woman are rich - and a flood of immigrants that overwhelm and alter society simply does not effect them.

Posted

Most of the time it is not that dramatic, and a simple and very legal procedure is followed. The police officer will ask you if he/she can search the vehicle, and if you deny permission, he/she and supervisors will consider other measures (e.g. warrant, drug dog, vehicle impound). Most people know how this game is played and submit to the search if they believe they have nothing to hide. Also, in many jurisdictions, police are permitted to search the vehicle in areas under immediate control of the driver (under seat, glovebox, sun visor, etc.).

Note that the courts have been far more protective of such rights when it comes to a private residence.

Our system is a lay over from old Britain where property rights were more important than common human rights.. The wealthy have always made the laws - take or break THEIR stuff and you do time - On poor man kills his poor neighbor and that's acceptable as long as it does not embarass the status quo.

Posted

And I don't think I am,

Well I don't recall posting anything like that, and I couldn't find it using the search function. Maybe it's in the same thread where you said the Holocaust was a hoax.

but since you're not denying it, now's the perfect time to clear the air. Do you, or don't you, support racial profiling at airports?

Do I support racial profiling in airports? I think racial profiling in airports is a non-issue. Everybody who submits themselves to airport security does so voluntarily, and airport security is required to search everybody who goes through, so *what* racial profiling at airports? Asking if I support racial profiling at airports is about like asking if I support Canada's military assault on the Turks and Caicos.

I can't imagine why you're hung up on the idea that at some point I supported racial profiling of Muslims at airports, but now I'm against racial profiling.

First off, as noted, I don't think I've ever supported racial profiling at airports.

Secondly, even if at some point in the past I might have said I supported racial profiling at airports, I don't see what that actually proves. It wouldn't contradict anything I've written here. My position on this issue has nothing to do with racial profiling. The only mention I've made of racial profiling is as an illustration of the fact that police can invent cause to stop someone for specious reasons.

Thirdly, if my attitude about some issue has changed in the course of my years on this forum, so what? I've changed a lot over the 6 years I've been here. Particularly in regard to my trust in law enforcement officers.

And finally, I think it's telling that you're now attempting to attack my position based on something I allegedly said on some unrelated topic, rather than making your case on its own merits.

And walking or driving about town" and "going about your business" is very different from breaking the law. Once again, an officer has to have stopped, detained, or arrested someone and have probable cause on top of that in order to question someone's citizenship.

As has been pointed out a number of times, the police can find legal cause to stop someone with little difficulty, so the language in this bill does not provide a great deal of assurance.

Furthermore, getting on a plane to go where one is going is "going about one's business."

When you get on a plane you are voluntarily submitting yourself to the scrutiny of law enforcement officials. The search of your person and property has occurred at your own request.

:D

:lol:

-k

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

Guest American Woman
Posted

Most of the time it is not that dramatic, and a simple and very legal procedure is followed. The police officer will ask you if he/she can search the vehicle, and if you deny permission, he/she and supervisors will consider other measures (e.g. warrant, drug dog, vehicle impound). Most people know how this game is played and submit to the search if they believe they have nothing to hide.

That happened to my daughter; she was stopped by the cops for a traffic violation, and of course he was looking inside the car. She noticed that she had a pot leaf necklace on the dash, and quick hid it when he was looking elsewhere. Of course he noticed it was gone, and asked her why she hid it. The funny thing is, it was my mom's necklace; she bought it in Hawaii and didn't know it was a pot leaf, she just thought it was a decorative leaf. She used to wear it to church there, until my sister asked her why she's wearing a pot leaf to church. :D

Anyway, because of what my daughter did, the cop asked her if he could search her car, which she was fine with. As luck would have it, though, the cop found a roach. She was truly flabbergasted and told the cop she hadn't smoked pot in well over six months, offered to go get a hair test, and told him the story of the necklace, and he let it go. He let the traffic violation go, too, in the confusion over the pot necklace/roach. :P

I guess the moral of the story is: even when you truly believe you have nothing to hide, it may not be the case.

Posted

Police never bother me and it is not because I am white and older. They always go after the dumber dogs - those that they can kick who can not articulate the abuse in court _ I am a talking dog..You kick me and my words might just get you removed for the force..having said that...a boarder is a barrier..like a wall...in a duplex..You can't have the neighbors chop a hole in your wall when they want to raid your fridge..there are rules.

National privacy as is individual privacy,is important. You can not focus on positive achievments if you are always in a state of harrassment. It seems that the powers that be like us de-focused and unstable...my theory is that more and more untalented people are now in the position of leader...Look at what the talentless Bush had to do ...he was so stupid that he reached for a dated play book that stated..when all else fails to stimulate the economy - wage war. Point I am making is that illegal immigration makes the populace go for each others throats - and a destablized society is easier to control than a focused one.

Posted

...Anyway, because of what my daughter did, the cop asked her if he could search her car, which she was fine with. As luck would have it, though, the cop found a roach. She was truly flabbergasted and told the cop she hadn't smoked pot in well over six months, offered to go get a hair test, and told him the story of the necklace, and he let it go. He let the traffic violation go, too, in the confusion over the pot necklace/roach. :P

That's an excellent example of life in the real world...for citizens and police. Most cops are professionals and are very keen to note such clues even while engaging in friendly conversation about license, insurance, destination, etc. People need to realize that police are working at several other levels while conducting a routine stop, which would otherwise bore them to tears.

I guess the moral of the story is: even when you truly believe you have nothing to hide, it may not be the case.

Agreed...and I was taught as much in a military JAG course. But the reality of standing up for your rights can be more problematic than just permitting the search and copping to any findings. Once your daughter admitted to the roach in context, the police officer goes into another mode completely because she had no priors or warrants and there was no reason to invest more effort or scrutiny into the stop. Traffic citations are just part of the game, kind of like the ante in a poker game.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Citzens must start understanding that civilian law enforcement is a standing army - they are your army...I never had a problem with a cop unless I gave that cop a problem he would return to me...Police are your servants..they don't mind the postion..but they demand as much respect as you demand yourself.

Posted

Citzens must start understanding that civilian law enforcement is a standing army - they are your army...I never had a problem with a cop unless I gave that cop a problem he would return to me...Police are your servants..they don't mind the postion..but they demand as much respect as you demand yourself.

Agreed...I have been stopped many times for "spirited" driving, and was once helped (bleeding) out of a roadside ditch by a highway patrol officer. After some excellent medical patchwork, the officer's sister's son gave me a ride to International Falls airport for a flight home (car was totalled).

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Did any of you see on FOX news the comparison of Mexico's system compared to the mild Arizona law?After watching the Mexican President complain about this proposed law and seeing the Democrats clapping like idiot,I couldn't help but think they are damn hypocrites.The Mexican police have far more power than the Arizona police do.Suspects have virtually no rights in Mexico either.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Guest American Woman
Posted
That's an excellent example of life in the real world...for citizens and police. Most cops are professionals and are very keen to note such clues even while engaging in friendly conversation about license, insurance, destination, etc. People need to realize that police are working at several other levels while conducting a routine stop, which would otherwise bore them to tears.

I agree. I'm sure "working at other levels" while engaging in things like traffic stops helps the police deal with a lot of other issues/crimes. It gives them the opportunity to observe people and circumstances, when they otherwise might not. I feel that's the idea behind this law; if people can never be questioned as to their citizenship, how are those who are in the country illegally ever supposed to be detected?

Agreed...and I was taught as much in a military JAG course. But the reality of standing up for your rights can be more problematic than just permitting the search and copping to any findings. Once your daughter admitted to the roach in context, the police officer goes into another mode completely because she had no priors or warrants and there was no reason to invest more effort or scrutiny into the stop. Traffic citations are just part of the game, kind of like the ante in a poker game.

Again, I agree; well said.

Posted

Anybody see some of the pro-illegal immigration protests on the weekend?

Here's some pictures.

PIC

PIC

PIC

PIC

Here's video.

Video

If you're keeping score at home. We have a sign that says "Republicans Breed Ignorance" with several swastias. We have a sign that refers to the Governor or Arizona as "Adolf Brewer." We have a sign that depicts a sherrif as a klansman. And We have a sign that says "Welcome to Arizona, the Nazi state."

I'm sure the mainstream media will be all over this protest, right? Paying the same attention they paid to some of the signs at Tea Party rallies. Right?

Sadly, I think we all know the answer. :rolleyes:

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

What in the world is wrong with Obama and his crew? Here's the CNN article.

Here's a video of SoS Clinton on Spanish television, stating that the administration wants to challenge the new law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkhDqKAlFgY

I can't find the video, but Hillary Clinton's press secretary stood by her words at a later press conference asking for more details.

What in the world is wrong with Obama? Looks to me like he's pandering to an extremist political constituency, those who are opposed to any concept of borders and want to live in a global village. Certainly there is a strong and vocal component of the Hispanic community that is also sympathetic and supportive of illegal immigration from Mexico. More frightening, is if Obama in his heart of hearts is opposed to this bill on a moral level.

Edited by Bob

My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!

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...