INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Yes, and this is similar to the Arizona law how?
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.
Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!
To which more and more Americans say
Yes, and this is similar to the Arizona law how?
<>i think the kind of racial profiling, forced interrogations, widespread harassment is a thing of the distant past. Ever since the professional policing wave, police departments have been some of the people most concerned with racial profiling and harassment of citizens in general.
this is correct.
this bill will most definitely lead to profiling because it says "reasonable suspicion" of being in the country illegally is grounds for a stop.
and this is incorrect. You can't pull somebody because of skin color, they have to break a traffic law first, if they provide a valid dl, they're find and on their way, w no questions asked.
So, was Steve being "profiled"?
It is my understanding that there need not be a traffic violation. Simply "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally, which leads to concerns that race or the appearance thereof may be used.
Unless I am entirely wrong and the AZ law does require a preexisting traffic violation?
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.
Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!
To which more and more Americans say
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.
Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!
To which more and more Americans say
Yep. He was on a bike.
6746169]
.
Unless I am entirely wrong and the AZ law does require a preexisting traffic violation?
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.
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.
<>
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.
But as far as the text of the law goes, they still need something else to stop the person in the 1st place.
But as far as the text of the law goes, they still need something else to stop the person in the 1st place.
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.
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.The minor in compsumtion law is based on behavior, not appearance.
Correct about suspicion though.
I "looked" like a minor, so what if someone "looks" like an illegal alien?
So you can be asked for your papers based on nothing but the way you look.
.Well you just disproved every supporters talking point
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
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.
So I had a false impression of the intrusiveness of this law......
Only if you broke another law first.
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.
Can you please show me this verbage?
.
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?
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.
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.
There was no need for the law. Absolutely none.
Looks like an undocumented driver to me
The more I think about it, the stupier the minor in consumption law analogy was.