|
AZ bill... |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 4> |
| Author | |||
merc 
Platinum Member 
American Scotchy Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: VA, USA Status: Offline Points: 7112 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: AZ bill...Posted: 14 July 2010 at 5:07pm |
||
|
so we dont hijack the other one...
"3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED. 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT." show me where the probem is in the bill... cuz maybe im not seeing it... edit link : http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf unless i overlooked it you still need reasonable suspision someone is breaking a law to stop them and check id (like it has been in AZ and is in all 50 states still) they cant just stop someone because they are mexican or are looking for work on the side of the road... Edited by merc - 14 July 2010 at 5:11pm |
|||
|
saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
|||
 |
|||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group 
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 5:27pm |
||
Under the new Arizona law, you can be stopped and asked for ID if: "REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES." Now how exactly do you define "Reasonable suspicion" of someone being an illegal? |
|||
|
|||
|
merc
Platinum Member
American Scotchy Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: VA, USA Status: Offline Points: 7112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 5:40pm |
||
|
and arnt you a jernalist?
taking something like that out of the context it is in really puts a twist on it... "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)." straight from the bill... that states that lawful contact must be made first... stopping someone at random and asking id is not lawful contact... they still need a legal reason to stop you... once stopped then they can identify your immigration status... no where does the bill say they can stop you because they think your an illegal alien... read it again... |
|||
|
saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
|||
|
|||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 5:53pm |
||
Exactly the portion you pulled out. It's illegal to be an illegal immigrant. The police can, in Arizona, stop you under a lawful encounter where they have reasonable suspicion that you are breaking the law. And being illegally in the country is breaking the law. Essentially, if they think you are an illegal, that is reason enough to begin a "legal encounter," at least in how the legislative language reads. |
|||
|
|||
|
merc
Platinum Member
American Scotchy Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: VA, USA Status: Offline Points: 7112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 6:01pm |
||
|
driving without a licance is illegal but they cant pull you over just because they think you might not have a licance...
once violate a traffic law then they can stop and ID you and make sure you have your ducks in a row... they cant just stop someone because they "think they are illegal" but if someone obviously violates a law then they can be detained and identified... its illegal for someone under 21 to be in position of a hand gun. if i have my pistol on my side and a cop comes up and asks to see id to check if im over 21 i dont legally have to show id... same thing here... now if j walk, litter, or give another legal reason for him to stop me then he can identify me and if im under 21 he can bust me for that too. but its not a legal reason to stop someone. the way the law reads if someone is stopped and is suspected of being an unlawful immigrant they can check with the feds... stopping someone on the street because they are ethnic is not a legal reason. Edited by merc - 14 July 2010 at 6:03pm |
|||
|
saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
|||
|
|||
|
PAINTBALL1
Gold Member 
Joined: 05 May 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 6:09pm |
||
|
Too bad it's not a crime to argue with such poor grammar and spelling.
I agree with Merc though. The law isn't written to allow anyone to be stopped because they are brown and look illegal. However, a cop can pull you over because you had your brights on or something ridiculous like that and it's a legal stop. From there if they suspect your illegal they can ask. I don't see a problem with this at all. Sure the door is open for abuse, but these are the men and women we depend on to protect us. We trust them to roam the streets with weapons, but not to make the right decsion in pulling someone over? There are bad apples in every organization that will get as close to crossing the line as possible, but that's life. Arizona is enforcing a law that already exists. They just streamlined it so that it's actually enforced. Good on them. |
|||
|
USAF Special Weapons Technician.
|
|||
|
|||
|
merc
Platinum Member
American Scotchy Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: VA, USA Status: Offline Points: 7112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 6:10pm |
||
|
the wording i was looking for.
you need to be in obvious violation of the law to be stopped... police cant stop you if they "think" your breaking the law... |
|||
|
saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
|||
|
|||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 6:22pm |
||
But the language of the bill does allow for this to happen. What it probably will be used for and what it actually legally says and allows are two very different things.
The door is written in for abuse, yes.
Speak for yourself.
|
|||
|
|||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 6:23pm |
||
That isn't what the bill says, though. Thus is the problem.
|
|||
|
|||
|
merc
Platinum Member
American Scotchy Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: VA, USA Status: Offline Points: 7112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 6:39pm |
||
|
at the very bottom
"C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal 23 laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and 24 respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens." im going to dinner but, im sure we can find some laws against racial profiling and illegal search later tonight... |
|||
|
saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
|||
|
|||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 6:45pm |
||
Enjoy your dinner.
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Mack
Moderator Group
Has no impulse! control Joined: 13 January 2004 Location: 2nd Circle Status: Offline Points: 9906 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 7:05pm |
||
|
Heck, I think they should check all our papers on a regular basis and the punishment for being illegal should be sufficiently severe to discourage repeat offenses.
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 7:07pm |
||
That's a little too Godwin for my personal tastes.
|
|||
|
|||
|
PAINTBALL1
Gold Member
Joined: 05 May 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 7:10pm |
||
|
Whale, would you be ok with the bill if a specific deifintion was given to "reasonable suspicion" but the rest of the bill remained unchanged?
I'm sure this has been discussed plenty enough, but I'm not here all that much. Is your issue with the AZ bill the wording in specific parts, or the bill itself? Reasonable suspicion governs a lot of what cops can and can't act upon and has to be proven. I honestly don't see how being used for this immigration bill is any different/worse than any other law. ( I know that was completely vauge and over simplisitic but that's how I understand it.) |
|||
|
USAF Special Weapons Technician.
|
|||
|
|||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 7:15pm |
||
Indeed. I've said before, I'm all for the rest of it: Establishing strict punishments for those who hire illegal immigrants, making it tougher for businesses who try to hire them to do so, etc. All of that is fine. My issue comes the vague nature of determining the "Reasonable suspicion" of someone committing the crime of being an illegal immigrant. This bill gives police the ability to request to see your ID if they believe you are under reasonable suspicion of committing the crime of illegal immigration. But how do you do that? What is suspicious behavior for being illegal? I don't know, and neither do you, and neither do the police, because it's not enumerated. But what it does do is open up police for legalized racial profiling. That's the part I am not OK with. Edited by agentwhale007 - 14 July 2010 at 7:16pm |
|||
|
|||
|
Gatyr
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Begging for strikes Joined: 06 July 2003 Location: Austin, Tx Status: Offline Points: 10300 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 7:54pm |
||
I was thinking it was rather Orwellian, which is ironic* given the conservatism I have come to associate with Mack. *Not meant to be a dig**, it's just how it comes off. **Not that I don't dig you, sweetie. |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
merc
Platinum Member
American Scotchy Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: VA, USA Status: Offline Points: 7112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 7:57pm |
||
|
"13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer. B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. " the only thing you are required to give by law is your name, no id required... then it is on them to prove the rest... still doing research and finding some things that will fit... |
|||
|
saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
|||
|
|||
|
merc
Platinum Member
American Scotchy Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: VA, USA Status: Offline Points: 7112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 8:05pm |
||
|
ha i guess they can stop you... i cant really find anything to state otherwise... im sure case law will come out soon but untill then its kinda sketchy...
in AZ you dont have to show ID but you have to give your full legal name... also i think that civil suits will come of any harassment, just need a few educated volunteers to buck, dont break any laws but egg them into arresting you under the new bill because you fail to show ID... |
|||
|
saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
|||
|
|||
|
oldsoldier
Moderator Group
Crazy old guy Joined: 10 June 2002 Status: Offline Points: 6725 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 8:08pm |
||
|
I do find it interesting how many Americans support the illegals in thier continueing breaking of our laws. Any attempt to control this mess is met by resistance from the Feds and bleeding hearts who are not on the front lines of the border and the problems therein.
If Agentwhale owned a farm on the Arizxona/Mexican border and was afraid to turn on a light at night, or to walk his own property his attitude towards this issue would be considerably differant. But alas being 'safe' from this invasion or armed individuals, his defense of the poor 'immagrant' who should go to the front of the line, and have no 'fear' of apprehension is predictable. YES control the problem Arizona, use the laws the Federal Government passed but seldom enforce, and learn to fear your Federal Government more than the armed drug smuggler setting his sights on you as you turn on your porch light to investigate a noise. The 'undocumented democrats' are more of an economic drain on the system than many here care to acknowledge, but will soon be an assured voting block for the Dems if they can get them 'legal' before the 2012 election. |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stratoaxe
Platinum Member
And my axe... Joined: 21 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 July 2010 at 8:16pm |
||
|
You know, this isn't the first time this has come up as a problem.
In a paper I wrote on profiling (stereotyping and profiling were general themes for my English semester), I studied a paper written a few years back by a professor (don't remember the college or professor, I can tell you I had to pay 4 bucks for the essay though
 ) on the Cuban drug problem from the 80's.One of the very first times that profiling was implied (not specifically mentioned, but certainly the first time the implication was made) was in a Court ruling where a man was pulled over by what I believe was a Florida police department (I could be wrong, I've already flushed out most of my studying haha) for a routine traffic stop, but it was proven to the Court that there was no reasonable cause for the stop, other than the man being a hispanic male.
The Court ruled on the side of the man, only tot later redefine profiling as a legitimate method of police investigation. Then again, in the 2000's, the Bush Administration (ironically) issued a statement that all Police Departments were to cease any and all profiling, so and so forth.
The point of all that (I realize was a confusing read, I don't have time to re-reason it out lol) is that, in the late 80's and early 90's, there was huge controversy over what rights the police had in the war on Cuban drug imports. The going idea was that you could pull over someone in traffic on a fabricated pretense and search their car simply on the basis that they matched the description of others that were commiting crime.
It was, however struck down. because of police abusing their "internal powers" (those quasi-rights / loopholes all police excercise on a daily basis to make their job easier). Just as in this situation. If the right violation is made (which it will), and it's brought to the SCOTUS, it will cause a rethinking of policy.
I don't see a situation in AZ where police will be stopping any and all with brown skin to "check their papers". That couldn't last.
That said, I applaud Arizona for stepping up to try and fix the problem. They're doing more than any administration in recent memory. And certainly more than a disappointing President Bush, who of all people being from a border state, should have done alot more to actively address the issue.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 4> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
merc wrote: