President Obama

[AtticaFlinch]

Can you cite in the new bill where it states that?

It's not a huge bill. You can break it down yourself if you'd like, but all the respectable outlets are decrying the subtle implications of the bill rather than any expressly stated efforts. In other words, it doesn't expressly encourage police to abuse their authority, but it does grant them a ton of latitude to detain and hold people who they merely suspect of being in the country illegally. There won't be just one place where the profiling is stated, but if you piece together several passages the intent becomes clear.

All cops with a legal reason to speak to someone can require proof of citizenship:

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

But what constitutes a legal reason? Violating a law of course. Which laws? Any of them. Even trespassing (by merely being in the US)? I'm glad you asked:

42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF

43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.

But wait, the piece de resistance:

20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP

21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE

22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND

23 THIS SECTION.

But what's reasonable suspicion? Well, if an officer suspects the person may be trespassing in the United States (by being here illegally), then that means said officer can pull him or her over and perform a search and require proof of citizenship. Why is this a problem? Can you tell the difference between a citizen hispanic, an immigrant with some sort of legal status, a foreign citizen with the legal right to work here and an illegal immigrant? I doubt it. But cops in Arizona have now been given the task of pulling every single one of them over, based on suspicion that they may be illegal, and verify their status. They don't have need to have violated any crime other than the fact they are hispanic. That's it. Nothing more. With the passage of this bill, being hispanic in Arizona is now probable cause enough for a violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution!

Why does this not bother all you right-wing, small-government acolytes?! Again, oh wait, it's because they aren't white, and therefore you aren't affected.

I guess that's the eternal loop-hole, in that how can you determine one's rights until you have determined their eligibility to fall under the law that protects said rights?

Not to be a jerk, but I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying the cops hands are tied by the fourth amendment, and that they can never verify immigration status? Check Red's post directly above yours. All I'm saying is being hispanic is not probable cause to think someone in the US is here illegally.

As for the "darkie" comment, people of all color will be affected by this. Turn the tongue-in-cheek racism down a notch, huh?

Oh yeah, it's me acting like the racist. You've typically been above this level of rhetorical hackery in the past, Jeebus, but I guess even you can succumb to it.

sb1070s1.pdf

[Marksmu]

Because state and local law enforcement agents do not have the authority to enforce federal law. HOWEVER, there is no reason that the game warden cannot arrest the fisherman on the fishing infractions. Once at the jail, the jailers may notify ICE that the arrestee may not be legal. Once ICE confirms same, a hold is placed on the illegal fisherman.

For a lawyer, you sure have a weak understanding of law...especially the Constitution.

That is precisely why the law was passed. The state CREATED a new law, that made it a violation of STATE law to be in violation of FEDERAL law. They said, we will enforce as a new state law, that any person in violation of federal law is also in violation of the state law.

Thats not a difficult thing to understand. It is not usurpring federal law, it is not creating new federal immigration law, it is just mirroring federal law and enforcing it b/c the government has completely abdicated its responsibility.

Whether or not a State law that enforces an existing Federal law is unconstitutional is the basis of the constitutional challenge here, that and the 4th amendment. However, I don't believe the 4th amendment prohibits verifying status if they are doing so after an otherwise lawful stop. You yourself have said it on this forum before. The cops use pretextual stops all the time, its a valuable tool in catching criminals....this is just Arizona's tool in catching criminals, who broke federal laws, and now as a result of this law have also broken a State Law.

For a lawyer, you sure have a weak understanding of law....the constitution is not all black and white. Your particular reading and interpretation of it, is not the law of the land....for a lawyer it seems strange that you would not know that.

[RedScare]

Thats not a difficult thing to understand. It is not usurpring federal law, it is not creating new federal immigration law, it is just mirroring federal law and enforcing it b/c the government has completely abdicated its responsibility.

For a lawyer, you sure have a weak understanding of law....the constitution is not all black and white. Your particular reading and interpretation of it, is not the law of the land....for a lawyer it seems strange that you would not know that.

Umm..."mirroring" federal law and enforcing it for any reason is usurping federal law. Immigration is clearly the purview of the federal government. It is not at all clear that a state may undertake to enforce it. And, which "federal law" does this apply to, criminal violations or civil? Many of the immigration violations are simply expirations of various visas. Do they count? Undocumented aliens themselves...the ones everyone is in an uproar about, are not committing a criminal violation. It is a civil violation, punishable by a fine.

The "black and white" comment is especially amusing coming from a conservative. Do you now admit that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" open to interpretation? Before you answer, remember that this is the position of liberals.

[Marksmu]

Umm..."mirroring" federal law and enforcing it for any reason is usurping federal law. Immigration is clearly the purview of the federal government. It is not at all clear that a state may undertake to enforce it. And, which "federal law" does this apply to, criminal violations or civil? Many of the immigration violations are simply expirations of various visas. Do they count? Undocumented aliens themselves...the ones everyone is in an uproar about, are not committing a criminal violation. It is a civil violation, punishable by a fine.

The "black and white" comment is especially amusing coming from a conservative. Do you now admit that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" open to interpretation? Before you answer, remember that this is the position of liberals.

Mirroring and enforcing, is not taking the place of...its complementary to. It is doing only as much as the federal government would IF the federal government were actually doing its job, nothing more. The fact that its not clear a state may enforce it, should be the challenge to this law....That is why I stated, its still a gray area. Soon to be defined I think though. Its one of those cases the Supreme Court would love to hear. Its right up their alley. The text book writers mouths are watering just praying it makes it all the way up.

Undocumented aliens themselves...the ones everyone is in an uproar about, are not committing a criminal violation. It is a civil violation, punishable by a fine.

That is not true. Perhaps you should read the United States Code, Title 8, section 1252...which clearly states:

"Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

• Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
• Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
• Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

Shall, for the firstcommission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. C1ivil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

Last time I checked the United States did not allow jail time for a civil offense. Illegal entry is a Federal Criminal offense....not a civil one. I did not see whether or not overstaying a VISA was a criminal act, but I suspect it is treated much the same as just crossing illegally....

As to my grasp of Constitutional law I had one of the most liberal constitutional law professors out there....Irene Rosenberg....I got only one point of view on the topic during that class....both semesters of it. Needless to say its pretty clear that even conservative justices use the commerce clause to grossly mis-construe the constitutions original intent. Liberals are worse, but both use the document to further their agenda.

Both parties have manipulated the words of the document to find things either constitutional or unconstitutional....I personally think that there are portions of the document that were clearly not meant to be flexible. Written in absolute terms. Other sections, are not so absolute, and therefore are more open for interpretation. Scholars can disagree on this forever...there wont ever be an answer to it....I do not take my positions from talking heads...I form my own opinions.

[AtticaFlinch]

Whether or not a State law that enforces an existing Federal law is unconstitutional is the basis of the constitutional challenge here, that and the 4th amendment.

That pesky little 4th amendment.... It's such an obstacle in our efforts to form a more perfect police state.

However, I don't believe the 4th amendment prohibits verifying status if they are doing so after an otherwise lawful stop.

Agreed, but what if the stop is only legal because the new law made it legal to pull people over for suspicion of being illegal? Don't argue yourself into a corner on this one.

You yourself have said it on this forum before. The cops use pretextual stops all the time, its a valuable tool in catching criminals.

And if you remember, you pretty much didn't like it when you were profiled for a crime you didn't commit and were pulled over and harrassed for an unnecessary length of time.

[ricco67]

Lawyer deathmatch.

Love it.

[Marksmu]

Agreed, but what if the stop is only legal because the new law made it legal to pull people over for suspicion of being illegal? Don't argue yourself into a corner on this one.

I only read the version of the law you posted here...if that was not taken out of context that part may not stand....but I have no problem at all with them verifying citizenship on each and every stop of someone who IS otherwise breaking an existing law. And I have no problem allowing the police to enforce federal law.

And if you remember, you pretty much didn't like it when you were profiled for a crime you didn't commit and were pulled over and harrassed for an unnecessary length of time.

I did not like it - but I was let go because I did not commit any crime. It was an inconvenience, nothing more....just like paying taxes. I don't like to pay taxes, I B%^*H about paying them, but I do it and go on with my life. If that is what it comes down to get the illegals out, and have them go home, and reapply, to come back legally, fine....

[AtticaFlinch]

I only read the version of the law you posted here...

The whole bill (as signed into law) is attached to that post. Give it a read.

if that was not taken out of context that part may not stand....but I have no problem at all with them verifying citizenship on each and every stop of someone who IS otherwise breaking an existing law. And I have no problem allowing the police to enforce federal law.

Should they verify citizenship with everybody they pull over or just the brown people? Are we going to illegally/unethically profile, or are we going to be consistent? Do you realize how time consumptive these stops will be if we're consistent and not illegally profiling? For someone who hates inefficiencies in government, you sure do seem to advocate that our government services operate more inefficiently (or illegally if we're to profile).

I did not like it - but I was let go because I did not commit any crime. It was an inconvenience, nothing more....just like paying taxes. I don't like to pay taxes, I B%^*H about paying them, but I do it and go on with my life. If that is what it comes down to get the illegals out, and have them go home, and reapply, to come back legally, fine....

So then, are you just b%^*hing here, and this conversation doesn't really represent your true feelings about this bill, or does the bill's xenophobia mirror your own? Which is it?

[ricco67]

I think I'll put in my two cents as a brown dude.

Not being that familiar with all the nuances in the Arizona law, I'm hesitant to fully embrace this law.

My main problem is that they should only check under the following circumstances:

Traffic Stop.

Suspicion of crime.

Apprehension during/after a crime.

Anyone taken to jail.

They should NOT ask when:

Reporting a crime.

Requesting help from law enforcement.

Not under suspicion of a crime.

Additionally, they need to apply it in even handed way and ask EVERY person they come across and not just the brown, yellow, black, or talk with an accent.

When I was younger and back from a "road trip" to mexico with some buddies, they asked me if i was an American citizen and I provided proof. They neglected to ask my fair haired friend, who was here illegally (I found out later) from Canada.

Toughen up on immigration? I'm all for it, but do it fairly or don't do it all.

[Marksmu]

I think I'll put in my two cents as a brown dude.

Not being that familiar with all the nuances in the Arizona law, I'm hesitant to fully embrace this law.

My main problem is that they should only check under the following circumstances:

Traffic Stop.

Suspicion of crime.

Apprehension during/after a crime.

Anyone taken to jail.

They should NOT ask when:

Reporting a crime.

Requesting help from law enforcement.

Not under suspicion of a crime.

Additionally, they need to apply it in even handed way and ask EVERY person they come across and not just the brown, yellow, black, or talk with an accent.

When I was younger and back from a "road trip" to mexico with some buddies, they asked me if i was an American citizen and I provided proof. They neglected to ask my fair haired friend, who was here illegally (I found out later) from Canada.

Toughen up on immigration? I'm all for it, but do it fairly or don't do it all.

I concur with your standpoint. I think it should be even across the boards, and colorblind. It would not be time consuming either. I can run a quick check in about 30 seconds myself right this minute using westlaw. There is no reason a cop cant.

[AtticaFlinch]

It would not be time consuming either.

It doesn't take long to verify their identity, but that's not the point of opposition to the bill. The bill allows cops to pull over anyone who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. And, considering we're talking about Arizona and not Minnesota, who do you objectively think this law targets? Is it targeting Canadians? Vietnamese? Chinese? C'mon, seriously.

If you don't think it targets brown people, giving cops an excuse to pull over and detain hispanic people simply because they're hispanic, then I suppose you're advocating cops pull everybody over, merely because they might not be Americans.

I think you fail to grasp that this law goes beyond verifying legal status once someone is pulled over, but extends authority to cops to pull people over because they suspect someone may not be an American. Do you not grasp the implication of this? This law tells cops that being brown is enough probable cause to indicate a violation of law! Do you not get this, or are you simply ignoring this implication?

Seriously, Marksmu, the only way to administer this law even-handedly is to pull everyone over and check everyone's legal status, regardless of whether or not they're visibly breaking any law. And that, my friend, is yet another violation of the 4th amendment (and way too ridiculously time consuming). This law is a turd. It's an immoral and unethical turd, and ultimately it will be proven out to also be illegal. You can't violate the constitution, and no matter how you interpret that document, this law violates the 4th amendment.

[ricco67]

It would not be time consuming either. I can run a quick check in about 30 seconds myself right this minute using westlaw. There is no reason a cop cant.

But under what circumstances do you want it checked? Under what I had posted, or for the officers to pull over anyone that fits "the profile?"

that "30 second" check is pretty decent of you, but yet you don't take into account the time it takes to pull someone over, get the ID, run the info, let the person go, and then having to tap in the appropriate paperwork justifying his time.

C'mon, you should know better than that.

[20thStDad]

It doesn't take long to verify their identity, but that's not the point of opposition to the bill. The bill allows cops to pull over anyone who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. And, considering we're talking about Arizona and not Minnesota, who do you objectively think this law targets? Is it targeting Canadians? Vietnamese? Chinese? C'mon, seriously.

Um, exactly. Arizona, not Minnesota. Do you think the illegals in Arizona are mostly Canadians or Asian? So what is the point of this? I'm with you no not letting cops pull over everyone for no real reason, but the race argument is silly at best because it is obvious that this is meant to deal with Mexicans since that is the border in question. So what? If Canada goes to flurf one day maybe Minnesota will need their own law, and no one will be crying "profiling!".

In general, can we establish that being here illegally is a crime? Yet for this crime, everyone is crying out that someone has to be suspected of or have committed another crime before they can be checked on the crime of being illegal. So how do we do this directly and just go after the crime of being illegal? Seems to me like it's set up to make it pretty easy to get away with being an illegal, which is why there is such a problem in the first place.

[AtticaFlinch]

Um, exactly. Arizona, not Minnesota. Do you think the illegals in Arizona are mostly Canadians or Asian? So what is the point of this? I'm with you no not letting cops pull over everyone for no real reason, but the race argument is silly at best because it is obvious that this is meant to deal with Mexicans since that is the border in question. So what? If Canada goes to flurf one day maybe Minnesota will need their own law, and no one will be crying "profiling!".

In general, can we establish that being here illegally is a crime? Yet for this crime, everyone is crying out that someone has to be suspected of or have committed another crime before they can be checked on the crime of being illegal. So how do we do this directly and just go after the crime of being illegal? Seems to me like it's set up to make it pretty easy to get away with being an illegal, which is why there is such a problem in the first place.

Why is the race argument "silly"? Are you suggesting if cops in Minnesota were given a blank check to pull over all white people simply because they were white, that also wouldn't be racism? Are you suggesting pulling over all white people would be justifiable if there was a border problem up north? Are you suggesting giving cops this much authority isn't problematic?

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'd rather adhere to the constitution than United States Code, Title 8, section 1252.

[ricco67]

Um, exactly. Arizona, not Minnesota. Do you think the illegals in Arizona are mostly Canadians or Asian? So what is the point of this? I'm with you no not letting cops pull over everyone for no real reason, but the race argument is silly at best because it is obvious that this is meant to deal with Mexicans since that is the border in question. So what? If Canada goes to flurf one day maybe Minnesota will need their own law, and no one will be crying "profiling!".

In general, can we establish that being here illegally is a crime? Yet for this crime, everyone is crying out that someone has to be suspected of or have committed another crime before they can be checked on the crime of being illegal. So how do we do this directly and just go after the crime of being illegal? Seems to me like it's set up to make it pretty easy to get away with being an illegal, which is why there is such a problem in the first place.

Gee. I didn't know Illegal mexican immigrants only stay close to the mexican border.

Perhaps the illegal canadians are the same way?

That explains why New York has a number of Illegal Russians and Europeans.

Spare me.

There are huge number of illegals that are other than Mexican in descent.

Some of the ones that I had met:

Sudanese

Chinese

Canadian

Russian

Saudi

Turkey

Bulgaria

And quite a few of the European Countries.

Check them all, but do it evenly and fairly.

[Marksmu]

It's not a huge bill. You can break it down yourself if you'd like, but all the respectable outlets are decrying the subtle implications of the bill rather than any expressly stated efforts. In other words, it doesn't expressly encourage police to abuse their authority, but it does grant them a ton of latitude to detain and hold people who they merely suspect of being in the country illegally. There won't be just one place where the profiling is stated, but if you piece together several passages the intent becomes clear.

All cops with a legal reason to speak to someone can require proof of citizenship:

But what constitutes a legal reason? Violating a law of course. Which laws? Any of them. Even trespassing (by merely being in the US)? I'm glad you asked:

But wait, the piece de resistance:

But what's reasonable suspicion? Well, if an officer suspects the person may be trespassing in the United States (by being here illegally), then that means said officer can pull him or her over and perform a search and require proof of citizenship. Why is this a problem? Can you tell the difference between a citizen hispanic, an immigrant with some sort of legal status, a foreign citizen with the legal right to work here and an illegal immigrant? I doubt it. But cops in Arizona have now been given the task of pulling every single one of them over, based on suspicion that they may be illegal, and verify their status. They don't have need to have violated any crime other than the fact they are hispanic. That's it. Nothing more. With the passage of this bill, being hispanic in Arizona is now probable cause enough for a violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution!

I did read the whole bill now, just b/c I did not believe they would put in the bill that you could just stop someone on the suspicion of being illegal....the lawmakers may not be the brightest legal scholars, but even they know that is in violation of the 4th amendment. What you did when you compiled this list was dishonest at best....your reading of the law shows either that you do not know how to read a statute, or that you choose to try to read them all together ignoring their different headings. It should be broken down as follows:

Quote

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

This tid bit is located in SECTION 2. The only real question here is WHAT is a lawful contact. I would venture a guess that a "lawful contact" is any stop that gave the officer probable cause to stop and question the individual. The same probable cause used to stop you any day of the year. This will need to be defined still, but I believe it should have read any lawful contact, where probable cause existed to make a stop....I think they just got sloppy here. This alone is not unconstitutional.

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF

43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.

This tidbit is located in Section 3. It should not be read to somehow think that it can be used as probable cause for the lawful contact. These paragraphs are completely separate sections of the bill...this is simply further defining trespassing to mean that a person who is illegal is trespassing on any public or private land in this state. This should not be read in any other way....probable cause for the stop must still exist to question citizenship. You can see how you tried to spin this to look much worse than it really is.

Now for the piece de resistance as you say.

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP

21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE

22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND

23 THIS SECTION.

But wait!!!! What is "THIS SECTION" its important what "THIS SECTION" actually is. This section is SECTION 4 - not 2, not 3, not 5...but 4. Section 4 ONLY DEALS WITH SMUGGLING. When read correctly, this section reads only that an officer may stop any person who he reasonably believes is SMUGGLING

Your picking and choosing of the wording in the new law looked great - heck I was almost convinced till I read it. But the way you put it together was dishonest and inaccurate...It was downright shameful.

The law as written requires a "lawful contact" which entails probable cause at all times....being hispanic/black/white any race, sex, etc has never been upheld as probable cause under any court....the only challenge that can be successfully made to this law is whether or not the officers stop involved lawful contact......Ignoring the overall question of whether or not the State is allow to make a law that does not interfere with, or supercede the Federal law. I think it will be upheld, and individual challenges based on probable cause will be the defense consistently used in court.

[20thStDad]

Why is the race argument "silly"? Are you suggesting if cops in Minnesota were given a blank check to pull over all white people simply because they were white, that also wouldn't be racism? Are you suggesting pulling over all white people would be justifiable if there was a border problem up north? Are you suggesting giving cops this much authority isn't problematic?

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'd rather adhere to the constitution than United States Code, Title 8, section 1252.

Actually you are the only one that I've heard saying anything about only pulling over whites or browns or whatever. No one else has suggested, and the law does not specify in any way that cops are now supposed to pull over only brown people. That's my point. Will you be surprised if 99% of the illegals caught/prosecuted in Arizona are hispanic? Really? Illegals are illegal, whatever color they are they are all subject to the same laws.

Gee. I didn't know Illegal mexican immigrants only stay close to the mexican border.

Perhaps the illegal canadians are the same way?

That explains why New York has a number of Illegal Russians and Europeans.

Spare me.

There are huge number of illegals that are other than Mexican in descent.

Some of the ones that I had met:

Sudanese

Chinese

Canadian

Russian

Saudi

Turkey

Bulgaria

And quite a few of the European Countries.

Check them all, but do it evenly and fairly.

Not sure what that has to do with anything I said, I never said all Mexican immigrants stay near the border. The law is in Arizona, I doubt it will have much of an effect on illegal Mexican immigrants in New York, where I'm sure there are at least a few. I agree, check them all evenly and fairly.

[ricco67]

Actually you are the only one that I've heard saying anything about only pulling over whites or browns or whatever. No one else has suggested, and the law does not specify in any way that cops are now supposed to pull over only brown people. That's my point. Will you be surprised if 99% of the illegals caught/prosecuted in Arizona are hispanic? Really? Illegals are illegal, whatever color they are they are all subject to the same laws.

Not sure what that has to do with anything I said, I never said all Mexican immigrants stay near the border. The law is in Arizona, I doubt it will have much of an effect on illegal Mexican immigrants in New York, where I'm sure there are at least a few. I agree, check them all evenly and fairly.

I just took the conversation evolving to a national level. As long as it is done in a consistent level, I don't think too many people (aside from Lulac militants) would be opposed to it.

[AtticaFlinch]

This tid bit is located in SECTION 2. The only real question here is WHAT is a lawful contact. I would venture a guess that a "lawful contact" is any stop that gave the officer probable cause to stop and question the individual. The same probable cause used to stop you any day of the year. This will need to be defined still, but I believe it should have read any lawful contact, where probable cause existed to make a stop....I think they just got sloppy here. This alone is not unconstitutional.

And this bill states that suspicion of being illegal is probable cause enough to make lawful contact. We shouldn't work off your guesses in the matter.

When read correctly, this section reads only that an officer may stop any person who he reasonably believes is SMUGGLING

Explain how a cop can reasonably believe someone to be smuggling without actually witnessing the loading/unloading of smuggled goods and people. What is the basis for this reasonable belief?

Your picking and choosing of the wording in the new law looked great - heck I was almost convinced till I read it. But the way you put it together was dishonest and inaccurate...It was downright shameful.

Wrong. All these rules tie in together. And I guess you missed this entire disclaimer I made:

It's not a huge bill. You can break it down yourself if you'd like, but all the respectable outlets are decrying the subtle implications of the bill rather than any expressly stated efforts. In other words, it doesn't expressly encourage police to abuse their authority, but it does grant them a ton of latitude to detain and hold people who they merely suspect of being in the country illegally. There won't be just one place where the profiling is stated, but if you piece together several passages the intent becomes clear.

I bolded the important parts this time. I was not being dishonest, and my understanding of this law is not inaccurate. Nice attempt to cast doubt though. I posted the entire bill on that post so everybody can read it. Hopefully no one will just blindly accept your (or my) interpretation of it.

And Marksmu, we can disagree about the implications of the bill without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Thanks.

The law as written requires a "lawful contact" which entails probable cause at all times....being hispanic/black/white any race, sex, etc has never been upheld as probable cause under any court....the only challenge that can be successfully made to this law is whether or not the officers stop involved lawful contact......Ignoring the overall question of whether or not the State is allow to make a law that does not interfere with, or supercede the Federal law. I think it will be upheld, and individual challenges based on probable cause will be the defense consistently used in court.

So you admit the bill needs further defining for clarification and that the lawmakers likely got sloppy, but you're incapable of recognizing that the bill wasn't sloppy, but specifically targeting one particular ethnic group? Ok, whatever.

Actually you are the only one that I've heard saying anything about only pulling over whites or browns or whatever. No one else has suggested, and the law does not specify in any way that cops are now supposed to pull over only brown people.

Yep, it's just me:

http://www.foxnews.c...cause-backlash/

http://kezi.com/news/local/171740

http://www.examiner....immigration-law

http://marketplace.p...mmigration-law/

http://content.usato...ntions-hotels/1

http://www.reuters.c...E63R5HP20100429

http://www.kgun9.com....asp?S=12398979

http://www.tri-cityh...om-arizona.html

http://gawker.com/55...aw-the-backlash

http://www.agweb.com....aspx?id=157113

http://www.huffingto...t_n_554488.html

http://latindispatch...st-arizona-law/

http://www.huffingto...e_b_555561.html

http://globalcomment...-the-democrats/

http://www.seiu.org/...gration-law.php

http://www.thereport...ion/ci_14982487

Shall I continue?

[20thStDad]

Yep, it's just me:

http://www.foxnews.c...cause-backlash/

http://kezi.com/news/local/171740

http://www.examiner....immigration-law

http://marketplace.p...mmigration-law/

http://content.usato...ntions-hotels/1

http://www.reuters.c...E63R5HP20100429

http://www.kgun9.com....asp?S=12398979

http://www.tri-cityh...om-arizona.html

http://gawker.com/55...aw-the-backlash

http://www.agweb.com....aspx?id=157113

http://www.huffingto...t_n_554488.html

http://latindispatch...st-arizona-law/

http://www.huffingto...e_b_555561.html

http://globalcomment...-the-democrats/

http://www.seiu.org/...gration-law.php

http://www.thereport...ion/ci_14982487

Shall I continue?

Continue if you want, but I was talking about on this thread not the known universe. Do you dispute that the law does not specifically call for arresting brown people only? So basically this isn't a problem with the law, but your problem (and all your fun link authors) about trusting cops. You think cops are dumb and will use this law to arrest brown people for no reason. I'm not saying they are or aren't dumb...but either way it's not the law's fault.

I did click on one link just for kicks, and the uproar seems to be about this "reasonable suspicion" that everyone is worried will result in assumptions being made based on nothing more than visual appearance. Well...so? I used to get carded buying beer, now I don't. I wonder why? I look older. Wait - ageism is a no-no, we can't assume someone is old/young based on looks, that would discriminate against people with progeria! Ok I'm back to saying that this is silly.

[RedScare]

That is not true. Perhaps you should read the United States Code, Title 8, section 1252...which clearly states:

"Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

• Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
• Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
• Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

Shall, for the firstcommission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. C1ivil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

Last time I checked the United States did not allow jail time for a civil offense. Illegal entry is a Federal Criminal offense....not a civil one. I did not see whether or not overstaying a VISA was a criminal act, but I suspect it is treated much the same as just crossing illegally....

That statute is fine when the immigrant is caught crossing the border. When the immigrant is already here, and there is no way to prove how he got here, where he did it, and when he did so (critical elements for determining jurisdiction and limitations), the only offense that can be proven is being present without documentation. That is a civil offense.

[AtticaFlinch]

Do you dispute that the law does not specifically call for arresting brown people only?

Can you recall a time that I did?

I did click on one link just for kicks, and the uproar seems to be about this "reasonable suspicion" that everyone is worried will result in assumptions being made based on nothing more than visual appearance. Well...so? I used to get carded buying beer, now I don't. I wonder why? I look older.

They're worried that their fourth amendment rights will be violated, and it's telling that you can equate the authority and position of a police officer to that of a convenience store clerk. The big difference here is that one is an agent of the government while the other... is a convenience store clerk. One makes on the scene determinations about whether or not you've violated the social contract and about whether or not you lose access to your inalienable rights and the other... is a convenience store clerk. See if you can spot the difference.

Wait - ageism is a no-no, we can't assume someone is old/young based on looks, that would discriminate against people with progeria! Ok I'm back to saying that this is silly.

Progeria? Wait, what? This isn't even tangentially related.

[Jeebus]

I think 20th Street Dad has made a good point. This law is to help better enforce illegal immigration laws in a state that borders Mexico, a country with a mass majority Hispanic population. Besides not having the law, how could it be any more generic to not specifically profile Hispanics, beyond the coincidence that the reason they will be the likely majority of illegals arrest is because of the glaring obvious fact stated in my first sentence?

I'm not sure what the uproar is really about from you Attica, except that you seem to like to needlessly stir the pot of racism by insinuating that this law is specifically and purposefully designed to put down the Hispanic people. This law is designed to eliminate illegal immigration from the Arizona/Mexico border. When did common sense and practicality of cause and effect go out the window?

If Minnesota passes a similar law are you going to waste everyone's time going on about how the Minnesota government are a bunch of racists trying to put down the "white man"? And if so, WHY?

[Jeebus]

FWIW, everyone needs to realize that this law is more of a preventative measure than enforcement tool. Look at the testimonials of illegal immigrants who have already told the news they're packing their bags. The fact that this law has been put into place is not so that Arizona can create a police-state where papers must be presented on demand, but rather to warn illegals that spending the time to set up shop in Arizona is now going to be a far more risky operation with real incarceration and deportation consequences.

Besides, until ICE takes custody of an illegal, they have to held in the local jail. Don't you think that eventually they'll run out of space, and when it comes to that, that the illegals will be the first to be let go? And when it comes to that, don't you think local law enforcement officials will order their officers to take it easy on the enforcement because there is no room, no funding, and still no support from the federal government.

[Marksmu]

And this bill states that suspicion of being illegal is probable cause enough to make lawful contact. We shouldn't work off your guesses in the matter.

Please show me where it states that. Remember the numbers that make up the section matter....when reading a statute each section stands alone unless it refers back to the other section specifically.

Explain how a cop can reasonably believe someone to be smuggling without actually witnessing the loading/unloading of smuggled goods and people. What is the basis for this reasonable belief?

Remember everyone who commits a crime is only being arrested on suspicion of committing it...You are still innocent till proven guilty in the USA...we are not Mexico...yet.

So you admit the bill needs further defining for clarification and that the lawmakers likely got sloppy, but you're incapable of recognizing that the bill wasn't sloppy, but specifically targeting one particular ethnic group? Ok, whatever.

The bill should better define what "lawful contact" entails...However I believe the drafters assumed that lawful contact was any contact where an officer had the right to detain, therefore any time where the officer either witnessed an infraction or had probable cause to detain.

I never said it was not aimed at Hispanics...I merely said it can be used against any illegal immigrant. Its clearly aimed at hispanics from Mexico...I readily admit that. They are the predominant group who ignoring our laws and taking advantage of our systems. So what? Im happy to call a spade a spade. Catch every illegal immigrant from Mexico, and send them home that is my stance! Every last one of em. Take 20% of every wire transfer heading back to mexico to pay for it. Eventually if we take away all of the incentive to be here, and keep making it more and more difficult to break our laws without getting caught we will solve the problem, or at least slow it down.

[dbigtex56]

And this bill states that suspicion of being illegal is probable cause enough to make lawful contact. We shouldn't work off your guesses in the matter.

Explain how a cop can reasonably believe someone to be smuggling without actually witnessing the loading/unloading of smuggled goods and people. What is the basis for this reasonable belief?

Police routinely ask drivers if they are carrying weapons or narcotics, and request to search their vehicles.

I'm not saying whether that's right or not, but the questions raised seem similar to those raised by the Arizona law.

I just want to know why there's a widespread concern that harassing people because of their perceived race or nationality = bad.

Harassing people because of their attire or length of hair = who cares?

[RedScare]

Remember everyone who commits a crime is only being arrested on suspicion of committing it...You are still innocent till proven guilty in the USA...we are not Mexico...yet.

The bill should better define what "lawful contact" entails...However I believe the drafters assumed that lawful contact was any contact where an officer had the right to detain, therefore any time where the officer either witnessed an infraction or had probable cause to detain.

Actually, arresting people on mere "suspicion" of committing a crime is a violation of both the Texas and United States constitutions...and more than likely Arizona's. A person may only be arrested in Texas with a warrant based on probable cause signed by a judge, or under those exceptions enumerated in Chapter 14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Reasonable suspicion only gives an officer the right to stop a person to investigate further.

The part that has everyone so riled up is that 30% of Arizonans are US citizens of Mexican descent (you may recall that Arizona was once Mexico). This law virtually compels police to violate the rights of nearly one-third of Arizona's citizens (since a police department that doesn't try hard enough to arrest illegals may be sued by private citizens), simply for looking Mexican. Some people become very offended when stopped by the police for what they perceive to be an unjust reason. I recall that even a HAIF poster started a thread a few months back complaining that HPD stopped him, even though he admitted violating the law, however slightly. Imagine what that person would do if he felt that police could stop him simply for looking white.

BTW, I am confident that "lawful contact" is defined elsewhere in Arizona's criminal codes.

Hmmm....I take that back. "Lawful contact" apparently is not defined. Conservatives seem to be suggesting that it means a stop for some other infraction, such as a traffic violation. However, an Arizona legislative staffer states that it means ANY contact police have with individuals in the normal course of business. So, that would include traffic stops, but also witnesses at a crime scene, victims calling for help, or even a person asking a police officer for directions.

[20thStDad]

Do you dispute that the law does not specifically call for arresting brown people only?

Can you recall a time that I did?

Just a few...you seem to be trying so hard to make it about race.

Considering Arizona's law is actually requiring cops to go beyond the scope of the above statement, expecting them to profile people based on race, I think the fourth amendment to the constitution sums up nicely why this new law is illegal:

Oh wait, the only people affected will be "darkies", not us gueros. Now I get why you're ok with it.

All cops with a legal reason to speak to someone can require proof of citizenship:

But what constitutes a legal reason? Violating a law of course. Which laws? Any of them. Even trespassing (by merely being in the US)? I'm glad you asked:

But wait, the piece de resistance:

But what's reasonable suspicion? Well, if an officer suspects the person may be trespassing in the United States (by being here illegally), then that means said officer can pull him or her over and perform a search and require proof of citizenship. Why is this a problem? Can you tell the difference between a citizen hispanic, an immigrant with some sort of legal status, a foreign citizen with the legal right to work here and an illegal immigrant? I doubt it. But cops in Arizona have now been given the task of pulling every single one of them over, based on suspicion that they may be illegal, and verify their status. They don't have need to have violated any crime other than the fact they are hispanic. That's it. Nothing more. With the passage of this bill, being hispanic in Arizona is now probable cause enough for a violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution!

Should they verify citizenship with everybody they pull over or just the brown people? Are we going to illegally/unethically profile, or are we going to be consistent? Do you realize how time consumptive these stops will be if we're consistent and not illegally profiling? For someone who hates inefficiencies in government, you sure do seem to advocate that our government services operate more inefficiently (or illegally if we're to profile).

It doesn't take long to verify their identity, but that's not the point of opposition to the bill. The bill allows cops to pull over anyone who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. And, considering we're talking about Arizona and not Minnesota, who do you objectively think this law targets? Is it targeting Canadians? Vietnamese? Chinese? C'mon, seriously.

If you don't think it targets brown people, giving cops an excuse to pull over and detain hispanic people simply because they're hispanic, then I suppose you're advocating cops pull everybody over, merely because they might not be Americans.

I think you fail to grasp that this law goes beyond verifying legal status once someone is pulled over, but extends authority to cops to pull people over because they suspect someone may not be an American. Do you not grasp the implication of this? This law tells cops that being brown is enough probable cause to indicate a violation of law! Do you not get this, or are you simply ignoring this implication?

They're worried that their fourth amendment rights will be violated, and it's telling that you can equate the authority and position of a police officer to that of a convenience store clerk. The big difference here is that one is an agent of the government while the other... is a convenience store clerk. One makes on the scene determinations about whether or not you've violated the social contract and about whether or not you lose access to your inalienable rights and the other... is a convenience store clerk. See if you can spot the difference.

Progeria? Wait, what? This isn't even tangentially related.

The border in question leads to an obvious assumption that most immigrants involved will be hispanic. So what? When Maine passes one we can then go nuts about profiling Nova Scotians? Those are some odd people though...

The progeria comment was about judging people visually. Whatever. The 4th amendment argument is a decent one to make and I think I'm with you there, but the race nonsense is just stretching it to be dramatic, in my opinion.

[RedScare]

Frankly, I believe there are some real world practicalities that will blunt much of the urge to profile Hispanics solely for an opportunity to check status. The obvious first reality is that civil rights groups will be looking for excuses to file 1983 actions against abusive agencies. These suits are expensive to defend in normal times, but much worse in this economic climate. Home values in Phoenix have dropped over 50%, crippling tax revenue. Home construction, Phoenix's number one industry, has been crippled. Crime is already up in Phoenix, making arrests of maids and gardeners for status offenses a questionable use of police resources. State and local jails must hold the arrestees until ICE takes possession of them. ICE will be in no hurry to take custody of non-violent status offenders (they already take and depot felons) with their own limited jail space, prosecutors, agents and immigration courts, especially since this law was enacted as an insult to immigration officials and the federal government. Therefore, Arizona governments will incur huge expenses to stop, detain, arrest and house thousands of non-violent status offenders, and must find a way to pay for it.

I believe that law enforcement will quietly attempt to arrest as few as possible, while still appearing to be enforcing the law, and local politicians will be vocal about how much this is costing. They will then let the taxpayers tell them which is more important, rounding up non-violent illegals or their skyrocketing tax bills. I find that to be more interesting than whether the courts allow states to usurp federal law.

[RedScare]

I'm with you on this one. The potential spill could be 330,000 gallons per day, and that sounds like a lot, but that only converts to about 6,000 barrels. That's not a lot. The Exxon Valdez carried 1,480,000 barrels. The more recent tanker spill off the coast of Spain released about 364,000 barrels. And as Ricco pointed out, this would be a mere fraction of any of the top oil rig spills.

The risks of deepwater drilling are being overplayed to stir up controversy. And if this actually were a legitimate environmental threat of the scale that it is assumed to be, we'd be talking about tankers...not rigs.

As the estimates of oil leaking from the broken well were quintupled, oil began washing ashore tonight.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=7412867

Government officials said the blown-out well 40 miles offshore is spewing five times as much oil into the water as originally estimated -- about 5,000 barrels, or 200,000 gallons, a day.

At that rate, the spill could eclipse the worst oil spill in U.S. history -- the 11 million gallons that leaked from the grounded tanker Exxon Valdez in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989 -- in the three months it could take to drill a relief well and plug the gushing well 5,000 feet underwater on the sea floor.

Ultimately, the spill could grow much larger than the Valdez because Gulf of Mexico wells typically hold many times more oil than a single tanker.