INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.
Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!
To which more and more Americans say
Arizona bill 1070
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.
Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!
To which more and more Americans say
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Yep. He was on a bike.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.
Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!
To which more and more Americans say
Same avoidance of the real questions...
I've asked real constitutional questions, but haven't got one answer...
Shock and awe
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.
Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!
To which more and more Americans say
I did not ask about the reaction, I asked about the content of the actual law.
The notion that there are more "professional victims" on the left then there are on the right is a little ridiculous when you have the Tea Party running around claiming to be the real Americans beaten down for years and years by all those intellectual elites........... this is a trend that has been quite common to American conservative thought for a long time. Rush, Glenn Beck, all those guys try and convince the common American that they are victims of some "leftist Democrat" plan to end America as we know it.
Lets get back to the issue at hand, though.
And Indy, this is not directed just at you.
In what way does anyone think this law, or laws like it if other states follow suit, will solve the problem?
We have kidnapping, drug cartels and gun running. Serious stuff, happening at shocking levels in Phoenix and across AZ as Diamond rightly points out.
Like all crime, this is a small minority of really bad, really dangerous people wreaking a lot of havoc.
The cartels and the kidnappers(almost always cartel related) by no means match up perfectly with or constitute even close to the majority of undocumented immigrants.
How will questioning anyone who looks like they may be illegal(Mexican, driving an old pick up truck, leaving a construction site????) and finding out in many cases that they are perfectly legal even begin to solve the problem?
To me, it sounds like taking scarce law enforcement resources and using them pretty inefficiently as they are very, very likely, on any given day, to have most of the people questioned under this law be legal.
This is why many police agencies are concerned about this law, may not enforce it, and if they do, will make it their lowest priority.
Never mind the serious issue of crime, how is it even the most effective way to find and deport illegals? Question 100 suspects per day in Tempe only to have 3 turn out to be illegal?
Sounds to me like we would be better off focusing on better border security, specialized federal-state-local task forces to deal with cartels and kidnapping and better funding of ICE so that the people devoted to the intelligence aspect of finding out who is illegal and acting on it as their full time jobs, not the local police, are catching 10 illegals instead of 3 and leaving the 100 legals alone.
I sound like a broken record by now, but the funny thing is, McCain-Kennedy immigration reform that was killed largely by the same people who accuse the feds of not acting, actually did all of the things I mentioned above.
Stronger border security, higher fines on illegal employers, specialized units focused on drug cartels and better funding and training for ICE. This was what we could have had in place since 2006 had most Republicans listened to their own President instead of a certain fat, drug addicted wind bag on the radio.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Well, I'm sorry that happened to him, I don't know of the circumstances surrounding his situation.
That's not the Seal Beach I knew growing up.
This biker club wasn't afraid of passing thru Seal Beach:
EagleGuiders Motorcycle Tours - CALIFORNIA COAST MOUNTAIN BEACH TOUR: Long Beach, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, Newport Beach, Balboa Island, Huntington Beach, Malibu, Venice Beach, Marina Del Rey, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach
Perhaps Steve could hang out w this Seal Beach biker next time:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FK1NTsVArrk/S4NjyvFzRQI/AAAAAAAAJ_8/TDnzop0ZMtU/s1600-h/IMG_0011.jpg
<>
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
If there in a car-yes. You can't pull some one over because the color of their skin.
There's a lot of hype being floated about by the media parroted it by some here, but it's not holding up to scrutiny of course.
This is why other states are starting to adopt parts of Az's law as their own.
<>
I have been up in Vermont tending to family issues for the last few days, and so I am just now reading about the specifics of the law.
I was not suggesting that a Cop could use the color of someone's skin as the explicit basis to pull them over, I was wondering how "reasonable suspicion" would be defined. No one can answer that yet.
However, what has been answered, by you and by the objective sources I have checked, is my question of whether or not there needs to be a pre existing traffic violation to trigger all of this!
The answer, I now know, is yes.
Everyone here arguing against this law, were you all away from the news the last few days like me? Why have the suggestions that you can stop anyone who looks Mexican been so widespread? There aren't enough practical arguments against this law...................
The imposition on legal immigrants to have "papers" does not appear to be that great now that I know a traffic violation is needed. If they had a drivers' license, which everyone is required to have on them when operating a vehicle, then they are fine.
Out of the context of a vehicle, the law still says "lawful" encounter and makes clear that all federal and AZ civil rights protections apply. So that to me means that, just as you can't, as a police officer, say "black kid, crack dealer, under arrest," you can't say "Hispanic, illegal, deport his ass."
In a car, you will always be asked for your license when stopped by a police officer, on foot or otherwise, you will be asked to produce identification or at a minimum give your name when questioned in any way.
So I had a false impression of the intrusiveness of this law......
However, it seems like all we have left are the following scenarios, then.
-Speeder is arrested for driving w/o a license, upon further investigation at booking, he is found to be an illegal and sent to a federal detention center to await deportation.
-Guy "casing the joint" outside a bank is stopped, questioned about his activities(lawful encounter) and then the cop calls him into the hotline based on the "reasonable suspicion" that he is here illegally owing to the fact that he was reluctant to give his name.
-A van is pulled over for driving erratically near the AZ-Mexican border, 11 occupants, officer notices that the driver is being extremely evasive and one of the passengers admits to being an illegal. Now, we have reasonable suspicion that the rest are as well, so the officer checks them out. (In this case, in close proximity to the border, border patrol, and not the cops, probably handles it anyway, and they operate under a significantly more generous set of rules, and rightfully so, given the fact that they work on the border and know what the tell tale signs are)
Here is the $1,000,000 question:
How is that any different than what we already do today? In the scenarios I mentioned, the 3 illegals would, under current law, have drawn the attention of law enforcement and been investigated far enough to determine that they did not belong here
So why do we need to go further? I think it is this requirement "shall" that law enforcement agencies go further that begs the question "for what?" This is the question many law enforcement agencies are asking.
Law enforcement agencies know best what the law says regarding the requirement for a traffic stop or other lawful encounter, but they are still skeptical of the effect any law of this kind will have on trust between the Hispanic community and officers. This is a huge concern if we are dealing with a crime wave, the cops need information, and the last thing Hispanics need, whether founded or unfounded, is the impression that they are being targeted as a community.
Plus, we still can't answer how this will even begin to solve the problem of 12 million illegals in the country and daily kidnappings in Phoenix. The same ratio of illegal/legal people stopped for a lawful purpose by police will exist. Plenty of people picked up for routine crimes today, including lack of proper ID, are deported. I don't see how it will get us more illegals to deport.
Especially considering the fact that funding ICE units trained specifically for this kind of work to a greater extent will provide a much better bang for the buck and free up some time for the Police to focus on kidnapping and drugs.
We will have more debates like this until we pass immigration reform. I hope Charlie Crist, Lindsey Graham and some other sane people get their views heard over the screaming of the Tea Party.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Based on the present environment in Az., having an extra tool for law enforcement isn't viewed as such a bad thing.
Yes, and we need to pass sensible immigration reform, no one is arguing that-at least I'm not.
<>
No argument here.
Just think the singular focus task forces and police units devoted to kidnapping and drug cartels given the extra tools would be a lot more effective than this vague, controversial and litigation inviting statute.
I think everyone, regardless of political views, can agree that anytime you can avoid a stand off between Glenn Beck and friends and Al Sharpton and friends, it is a good thing.
What Cop in Arizona would rather have tin foil on the head Beck and criminal Sharpton fighting it out with their armies of crazies than more funding for task forces focused on cartels and kidnappings?
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
This isn't sensible. This is "hey, cops, inspect every brown person because if you don't, you could get sued."
"Suspicion" isn't defined, but lawsuit is very clear. So, everyone is suspect if they don't like like a real American. And a "real American" is someone of European descent to those who would sue the cops.
"Suspicion" isn't defined, but lawsuit is very clear. So, everyone is suspect if they don't like like a real American. And a "real American" is someone of European descent to those who would sue the cops.
But as far as the text of the law goes, they still need something else to stop the person in the 1st place.
The cop being concerned about getting sued sounds plausible at first, but think of it practically.
1.)Most Police Departments do not even want to enforce this, many will be instructed not to(Phoenix) and they are all lawyered up extremely well. Good luck fighting city hall or the Afghanistan veteran cop in court if you are Bubba the redneck pissed at them Mexicans but never served a day in the military. From a cost and a perception of the person standpoint, its a losing bet suing city hall or the cops.
2.)In order to have standing to bring a law suit, you need to show that you were harmed by a law, an act, etc. You are addressing a wrongdoing.
Who is/are the aggrieved part
(ies) in a case where the police do not sufficiently question a brown person?Grandma and Grandpa real European Americans pissed off at the Mexicans are 3rd parties and have no standing to sue the cop for not asking Pablo where he is from.
Again, philsfan, you and I both are skeptics of this law. I just think that, upon further research, some of the opposition to it borders on the same hysteria whipped up by the Republicans against immigrants every election year.....
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Oh, of course, obviously it won't be as bad as I say it is in that post, but I'm saying that this law allows something like that to occur in theory, and that's the point. Too much is left up to subjectivity, and I don't like that.
However, as you and I know, lawsuits don't always end up just being about the "harm or no harm" situation you state in your second point. Many times the government/police will settle on something because they don't want to spend the time to go through the legal processes that are costly. That's another factor to consider, especially for those with "political influence."
However, as you and I know, lawsuits don't always end up just being about the "harm or no harm" situation you state in your second point. Many times the government/police will settle on something because they don't want to spend the time to go through the legal processes that are costly. That's another factor to consider, especially for those with "political influence."
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
As far as the text of the law, sure. We'll see how that plays out in practice.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This isn't true. Just like my minor in possession example earlier, a cop can approach anyone under suspicion that they are breaking the law by being here illegally.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
The minor in compsumtion law is based on behavior, not appearance.
Correct about suspicion though.
As a cop will approach any vagrant Caucasian as well for example-out of suspicion.
If the vagrant Caucasian is an undocumented Russian with no ID, guess what-he's gone.
If you're a vagrant regardless of your skin color, hanging out on private property- be prepared to show a valid ID.
If you have a problem with that -rewrite the vagrancy laws of Az, and rewrite minor in consumption laws for minors as well- for that matter too.
What's so difficult about obeying the laws of the state?
I'm sure if any Az Cop walks up to any person for no reason and the first question out of the cops mouth is, "Where are your papers"? could have their case thrown out completely.
<>
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
But the cop doesn't know if they are a minor until they ask for ID, and that's my point. I didn't look 21 when I was of age and I got approached all the time, it had nothing to do with behavior, it was appearance.
I "looked" like a minor, so what if someone "looks" like an illegal alien?
Well you just disproved every supporters talking point.
So you can be asked for your papers based on nothing but the way you look.
So let me ask you, since no one has been brave enough to answer it yet...
If this AZ law is only there to enforce the Federal law, then why the law? Why not just a memo? You don't write laws just to tell cops to enforce the Federal ones...
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Cop can't ask.
Only if you broke another law first.
.
No, I didn't. You don't seem or want to understand the law.
The problem was the Fed's were not enforcing it, therefore forcing us to use this mechanism as a stop gap.
We needed something with teeth in it, since the Feds have been asleep at the wheel. You don't have a problem w the citizens of Az. lawfully protecting themselves now do you?
I now see your point, BVS.
Apparently minor in consumption laws and this new Immigration Law are not the same thing. The Immigration Law provides more protection and sensitivity.
<>
Bluer White
New Yorker
Me too. I had the same reservations at first. But it appears that Arizona has tried to mimic the federal laws concerning illegal aliens.
Again, it's in the courts now where it belongs. Hopefully that will give us some clarity and the states will have a better idea of their options.
Bluer White
New Yorker
It's good to have a man on the scene, diamond 
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Can you please show me this verbage?
If you are here illegally, then you are breaking the law. Everything I've read from lawyers who have actually read the law says this is the case. Just like a young person holding a beer might be in suspicion of breaking the law, so is anyone now in Arizona.
If it's the same as the Federal law then you don't need to rewrite it. Just because you rewrite it doesn't mean cops will change what they do.
I guess this is going to hinge on how Police/Courts, etc interpret the "any other lawful encounter" verbage.
Can we all agree that the vehicle can not be stopped simply based on reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal?
So that leaves non vehicle encounters.
Minor in possession laws are quite different. Age and race are 2 factors you can not control, but unlike with race, there is a legitimate justification for applying laws differently by age group. I am no expert, but due to physical make up, brain development, etc we don't think its a good idea to be drinking when you are under 21. So reasonable suspicion of being underage is enough in that case for law enforcement to question. When is there ever a justification to stop someone because of their race?
To me, any other lawful encounter says they need a reason to stop in the first place. The reasonable suspicion of being illegal develops in the course of the lawful stop. I think from reading the law further that Diamond is right, if you just walked up to someone who looked the part and said "where's your papers" that would be a very, very weak case.
The lawful encounter criteria was developed in AZ probably because no one can come up with a "reasonable suspicion" criteria for an initial stop that does not center on race or appearance thereof. In other words, the suspicion comes from gathering information that the officer can not gather from just looking at the car and driver(i.e. I.D., unwillingness to answer questions, etc).
Again, I think this law, with its lack of definition of key points like "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful encounter" leaves far too much ambiguity for Police and citizens alike, and is just inviting a bunch of costly court battles.
It is my conclusion that this law really will not pick anyone up that could not be picked up today without abuses and a major court battle that in all likelihood, the Police will lose or bargain out.
How extensive will the abuse be? My instinct is not very extensive, as like I keep mentioning, Police Departments are weary of enforcing this law on its face, never mind when they actually do want/have to enforce it. You can be sure they will be crossing every legal "T" and dotting every "I."
There will be different levels of enforcement by different Police Departments throughout Arizona, different court battles(some by Police Departments and cities against the State, some by affected citizens against Police/State), different results from each.
This law is the antithesis of a clear, effective standard for approaching and solving a problem. It is this fact, not the over hyped effect on innocent parties, that gives me pause and tells me it is a bad idea.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
The more I think about it, the stupier the minor in consumption law analogy was.
We also pull over kids who don't look at 16 yrs of age who are behind the wheel of a car.
Some here will then say: "Now, you're picking on minors"
Ludicrous.
<>
We also pull over kids who don't look at 16 yrs of age who are behind the wheel of a car.
Some here will then say: "Now, you're picking on minors"
Ludicrous.
<>
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I'm not saying there is justification, but my point is you don't need justification anymore. You don't have justification to stop a young person when coming out of a bar until after you ID them, suspicion is enough. And it happens all the time, especially in college towns, they need the revenue.
Since you don't fine those who are here illegally there is no revenue incentive, but my fear is that they will create some kind of quota incentive, and that suspicion will be enough now for certain cops to start harassing people.
Exactly, I think this law is only designed to pick up votes from the tea bag crowd. That's it. There was no need for the law. Absolutely none.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Looks like an undocumented driver to me 
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Wrong on both statements.
Your worries might be projection or transference of your values on to someone else perhaps.
<>
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Looks like an undocumented driver to me
Only a bigot would claim (or joke) one was undocumented by appearance alone.
<>
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Analogies are hard aren't they, especially when you have to apply thinking...
Let me spell it out for you:
What is the justificiation for going up to a young looking person and asking for ID if they are holding a beer in legal area?
Suspicion that they might be under 21. You can't prove they are a minor until you ID them. Some people who are 21 look much younger. That is all you need, is that suspicion.
So how will suspicion be applied to this law?
If you can come up to me and ask for my ID only because I look young, what's to stop you from coming up to me only because I look like I'm not a legal citizen. It's all based upon subjective looks.
Similar threads
