New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

what did I say to indicate Racial profiling?

actions of the person they are talking to "IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES". you pull a van over for speeding. inside you got a group of 10 people, three speak with a heavy accent but understands the officer, four don't speak English (one responds to the officer's English questions the other three has to have their friend translate the question to them) and 3 speak perfect English.

Which one(s) have the higher percentage to being illegal?

My mistake. You seem to be basing it on language rather than race. However, I wonder why you think that speaking a different language is indicative of being an illegal alien.

The only thing pertinent in this example is that a crime has been committed. That gives the LEO reasonable suspicion grounds for investigating nationality and immigration status. Notice the van was not pulled over for blaring La Raza 100 FM out the window. (which should be a crime if they insist on using an echo chamber)

[Muravyets]

Since when is citizenship or residency status listed with driver's license info? And how many illegal immigrants carrying false licenses are carrying ones that would show them as not being in the country legally? The idea that a cop would stop someone -- anyone -- and demand to see proof of legal status and be satisfied with a driver's license seems kind of silly to me.

Clearly you're unaware of what a police officer does with your driver's license when he/she goes back to the cruiser while you're sitting there pulled over.

And clearly you're not aware that many illegal immigrants have valid driver's licenses but don't get deported every time they get their licenses checked. So...see my bolded question above again. I maintain that if the stop is for the purpose of checking legal status to be in the country, a driver's license isn't going to cut it, and if you think you, with your pure and legal American soul shining forth, are going to be waved through because of your driver's license, you're kidding yourself.

Unless, of course, you're blond, pale and blue-eyed, that is (in Arizona).

[Muravyets]

I will repeat, for the hard of reading: The law is not racist. As to your determining the credibility of another, the thought is merely amusing.

You're not very good at this not trying to start flame wars thing, are you?

[Muravyets]

Yeah, that's so funny how you're attacking me for writing off someone who flamed and who just to warned for it, too. Looks like I'm done with you, as well.

If you had read all of Melkor's post, <snip>

blah blah blah. Let me know when you feel like getting back to the topic.

[Muravyets]

I don't think you understand. I'm kinda giving up on explaining it. Here is one more last try: American citizens must now prove they are not illegal immigrants by having ID on them.

Why? Because you can't tell a legal american citizen from an illegal non citizen from a legal non citizen just by looking at them or asking them a few questions. This means that EVERYONE has to have ID on them at all times or risk being arrested.

You say that as if it's a problem.

It is a problem. It's also a violation of the Constitution.

[Muravyets]

The law specifies that pretty well: Arizona driver's license, Arizona non-operators license, valid tribal identification, or any other state and federal license that includes verification of immigration status as part of issuance.

The real issue here is "What is reasonable suspicion of non-citizenship?", which is what creates all of the concerns about racism. The only difference between a citizen and a non-citizen is that one went through a process, the ID being proof of the process. How can you tell them apart without the ID or leaning on a profile based on race?

Born citizens didn't even go through a process. Born citizens don't have to have a driver's license or even a non-operator's license, if they don't want one. Born citizens at most have an SSN, which we all know is one of the most commonly stolen/forged IDs in the country, so pretty much not good for much. Are we now going to force all born citizens of the US to submit to getting photographed by the government to prove their IDs. Force all citizens born or naturalized to carry ID with them at all times? Randomly stop anyone on the street, demand to see ID, and if they don't have one of the OK forms (on them or at all) and do what with them, if it turns out they were born in New Jersey?

And what is the standard for "acceptable ID"? Who sets it? Each individual state? What if what is acceptable in Wisconsin is not acceptable in Florida? Shall we just put an end to all interstate travel unless people get a permit to pass through a state? No more vacations to Yellowstone and stuff like that because you might get scooped up and shipped off to Mexico?

EDIT: Explain to me again, someone, please, how the RNC is the small government party, how the Teapartiers are the individual liberties people? Tell me again how the right wing love freedom?

[Gift-of-god]

The only thing pertinent in this example is that a crime has been committed. That gives the LEO reasonable suspicion grounds for investigating nationality and immigration status. Notice the van was not pulled over for blaring La Raza 100 FM out the window. (which should be a crime if they insist on using an echo chamber)

Other than the hype from the pro-immigration groups, what part of the law targets Hispanics? A third of all Arizonans are Hispanic, so I'd say any claim of reasonable suspicion based on appearance or language would be disregarded, especially since reasonable suspicion is a defined legal standard that requires a criminal act.

The part of the law that compels LEOs to demand proof of citzenship from anyone they suspect of being illegal aliens is racist in that it can, and most likely will, be used to target members of a visible minority, i.e. latinos.

Where did you get the idea that soemone needs to commit a criminal act before they are asked for proof of citizenship? That does not seem to be part of SB1070.

[Muravyets]

I would think they would have their driver's license on them.

not everyone drives nor has a state ID.

But this applies to stopping people, and to do this one must drive. To drive, you must have your driver's license.

So all illegal immigrants have to do to be safe is take the bus?

[Shrubsville]

i'm sorry but this just smacks of 'LETS DEPORT TEH DARKIES LOL'. How are they going to enforce this law, pull over every brown person they see? I for see a drop in arizona-based tanning salon profits in the near future.

[Muravyets]

I would think they would have their driver's license on them.

not everyone drives nor has a state ID.

But this applies to stopping people, and to do this one must drive. To drive, you must have your driver's license.

No, the bill is not limited to the police stopping you on the road. It says that during the course of any lawful contact, LEOs should make a reasonable effort to find out a person's immigration status.

And lo! Some in the GOP are not exactly behind the bill. Gosh. Jeb Bush? Marco Rubio? KARL ROVE?

Tom Tancredo, even. Makes you wonder just how far out the fringe goes, doesn't it?

[Muravyets]

I would think they would have their driver's license on them.

not everyone drives nor has a state ID.

But this applies to stopping people, and to do this one must drive. To drive, you must have your driver's license.

No, the bill is not limited to the police stopping you on the road. It says that during the course of any lawful contact, LEOs should make a reasonable effort to find out a person's immigration status.

And lo! Some in the GOP are not exactly behind the bill. Gosh. Jeb Bush? Marco Rubio? KARL ROVE?

Law enforcement is also very dubious about it. The thing is, it puts a wall between law enforcement and non-white communities. Or to be more accurate, it strengthens the wall, right when law enforcement was trying to bridge community gaps. When feeling persecuted by the [/i]'Papieren, bitte'[/i] law, all that community outreach is wasted; even reversed. Doesn't matter how polite or rude the cops are, people will feel (justifiably) violated by being forced to prove their own citizenship. It will make the problem worse, not better. It's especially telling that the law was apparently enacted in response to the news about cross-border kidnapping raids. Can anyone really tell me how this bill is the best response against that? Or how it will even help -- just a little bit?

I was discussing this with the family last night, and I argued that the criminal elements that we all want to get rid of -- the smugglers, the gangs, etc. -- they all already have support systems in this country, namely American criminals. Who do you think they are dealing with when they traffick all those drugs, guns, workers, etc? If those guys want to drop off the radar, they have a network to rely on. The ONLY in law enforcement has on tracking them are the communities they blend into, the ones who are not smugglers and gang members, etc., but who live physically close to them, who are in a position to see them, know them by sight, know where they hang out, and who are put at risk just by their presence. Those are the people the cops have to win over, and laws like this make that impossible.

[Muravyets]

Racial profiling, can be of help, how many white illeagals are there?

Lots, especially from Russia and Ireland. Many overstay work or student visas.

[Farnhamia]

I would think they would have their driver's license on them.

not everyone drives nor has a state ID.

But this applies to stopping people, and to do this one must drive. To drive, you must have your driver's license.

No, the bill is not limited to the police stopping you on the road. It says that during the course of any lawful contact, LEOs should make a reasonable effort to find out a person's immigration status.

And lo! Some in the GOP are not exactly behind the bill. Gosh. Jeb Bush? Marco Rubio? KARL ROVE?

Tom Tancredo, even. Makes you wonder just how far out the fringe goes, doesn't it?

Tom Tancredo? How does that make John McCain feel, after he rushed out to support the bill?

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

The only thing pertinent in this example is that a crime has been committed. That gives the LEO reasonable suspicion grounds for investigating nationality and immigration status. Notice the van was not pulled over for blaring La Raza 100 FM out the window. (which should be a crime if they insist on using an echo chamber)

Other than the hype from the pro-immigration groups, what part of the law targets Hispanics? A third of all Arizonans are Hispanic, so I'd say any claim of reasonable suspicion based on appearance or language would be disregarded, especially since reasonable suspicion is a defined legal standard that requires a criminal act.

The part of the law that compels LEOs to demand proof of citzenship from anyone they suspect of being illegal aliens is racist in that it can, and most likely will, be used to target members of a visible minority, i.e. latinos.

Where did you get the idea that soemone needs to commit a criminal act before they are asked for proof of citizenship? That does not seem to be part of SB1070.

The law requires that the standard of "reasonable suspicion" be applied. It's a defined legal standard. I've provided that definition. Now quote for me the part of the law that "compels LEOs to demand proof of citzenship from anyone they suspect of being illegal aliens".

The part I read that requires reasonable suspicion reads thus,

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

So we have two defined legal standards applied here, 1 it must be a lawful contact, and 2 reasonable suspicion must exist. That hardly allows a LEO to walk up to the fellow sitting in the park and ask for his papers.

[Gift-of-god]

The law requires that the standard of "reasonable suspicion" be applied. It's a defined legal standard. I've provided that definition. Now quote for me the part of the law that "compels LEOs to demand proof of citzenship from anyone they suspect of being illegal aliens".

The part I read that requires reasonable suspicion reads thus,

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

So we have two defined legal standards applied here, 1 it must be a lawful contact, and 2 reasonable suspicion must exist. That hardly allows a LEO to walk up to the fellow sitting in the park and ask for his papers.

Well, you quoted the part that compels LEOs to demand proof of citzenship from anyone they suspect of being illegal aliens. Thank you for providing my evidence for me.

Please note that it does not say that a crime must be committed in order for the LEO to demand proof of citizenship.

[Free Soviets]

So we have two defined legal standards applied here, 1 it must be a lawful contact, and 2 reasonable suspicion must exist. That hardly allows a LEO to walk up to the fellow sitting in the park and ask for his papers.

actually, it either allows that or is utterly meaningless babble.

lawful contact, if it means anything (and it's not clear that it does), means situations in which a cop can legally make contact. so probably no busting down doors without warrants under most circumstances. but they can always make contact with a person on the street in a lawful way.

reasonable suspicion about immigration status is impossible for local and state law enforcement to have, unless they actually see someone physically jumping the fence.

[Gravlen]

...along with presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence doesn't factor in when trying to determine your nationality.

[DaWoad]

...along with presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence doesn't factor in when trying to determine your nationality.

sure it does, on must be assumed to be innocent (ie. born or currently maintaining a residence in innocence) until proven guilty

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

i'm sorry but this just smacks of 'LETS DEPORT TEH DARKIES LOL'. How are they going to enforce this law, pull over every brown person they see? I for see a drop in arizona-based tanning salon profits in the near future.

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders. But they didn't and the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

So we have two defined legal standards applied here, 1 it must be a lawful contact, and 2 reasonable suspicion must exist. That hardly allows a LEO to walk up to the fellow sitting in the park and ask for his papers.

actually, it either allows that or is utterly meaningless babble.

lawful contact, if it means anything (and it's not clear that it does), means situations in which a cop can legally make contact. so probably no busting down doors without warrants under most circumstances. but they can always make contact with a person on the street in a lawful way.

reasonable suspicion about immigration status is impossible for local and state law enforcement to have, unless they actually see someone physically jumping the fence.

We've about run the gamut here and I've said all that I can say. It's going to be decided in some court, without a doubt and will probably be tossed on account of border control being a federal responsibility. But it will not be toss on account of the language for stopping and questioning suspects.

[Gift-of-god]

We've about run the gamut here and I've said all that I can say. It's going to be decided in some court, without a doubt and will probably be tossed on account of border control being a federal responsibility. But it will not be toss on account of the language for stopping and questioning suspects.

How does a LEO determine if someone is a suspect?

[Muravyets]

i'm sorry but this just smacks of 'LETS DEPORT TEH DARKIES LOL'. How are they going to enforce this law, pull over every brown person they see? I for see a drop in arizona-based tanning salon profits in the near future.

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders. But they didn't and the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

Are you saying it wouldn't have been necessary for Arizona to pass a grossly racist and unconstitutional law if only the federal government had scrapped the Constitution and deported all the darkies?

I really fail to see why people can't wrap their brains around this: The Arizona law is bad in its own right, aside from anything the federal government has done wrong. An argument can be made that failure of the fed to enforce federal law effectively might force a state to usurp federal power and do it themselves. But that in no way justifies the outrageous abuse potential built into this particular ridiculous law. There is no excuse for it.

[Dyakovo]

We've about run the gamut here and I've said all that I can say. It's going to be decided in some court, without a doubt and will probably be tossed on account of border control being a federal responsibility. But it will not be toss on account of the language for stopping and questioning suspects.

How does a LEO determine if someone is a suspect?

If the person talks or looks "Mexican"....
Which of course is a very reliable test as I showed earlier in the thread...

[Dyakovo]

i'm sorry but this just smacks of 'LETS DEPORT TEH DARKIES LOL'. How are they going to enforce this law, pull over every brown person they see? I for see a drop in arizona-based tanning salon profits in the near future.

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders make immigration a reasonable process. But they didn'tand the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

Fixed.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

We've about run the gamut here and I've said all that I can say. It's going to be decided in some court, without a doubt and will probably be tossed on account of border control being a federal responsibility. But it will not be toss on account of the language for stopping and questioning suspects.

How does a LEO determine if someone is a suspect?

If the person talks or looks "Mexican"....
Which of course is a very reliable test as I showed earlier in the thread...

When a third of the population is Hispanic, it's not about appearance. What do cops ask when they pull a car over? What do they ask at a DUI roadblock? Arizona doesn't issue drivers licenses to illegals. That's a start. How about registration? Proof of insurance? if these queries lead somewhere, great!

Despite the demagoguery, not every traffic stop is going to result in a call to ICE. No Hispanic looking or sounding person is going to be asked for papers just because they look Hispanic. With over 2,000,000 Hispanic citizens, the police in Arizona are just going to have better things to do.