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? 

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. 

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. 

Speak for yourself. 

That isn't what the bill says, though. 

Thus is the problem. 

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/other/racial-profling---laws-in-your-state/page.do?id=1106665 - Thus another problem. Racial profiling regulation is state-based, not Federal.

Enjoy your dinner.  

That's a little too Godwin for my personal tastes. 

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. 

 

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.

I was unaware Nebraska was a border state, champ. 

I'll ask again, how exactly do you define probable cause and suspicion of being an illegal alien? 

Is it a behavior? What is it? 

The langage used in the beginning of the bill is the issue here because of the door it opens up for racial profiling. That's it. Take that part out, or bother defining it, and you have a positive reform bill that wouldn't even cause this debate. 

In that case, why not just avoid the lawsuit and problems to start with by adding in extra enumeration of police effort to the bill? 

But with the state of Arizona putting it in writing, it has gone from something that is sketchy, unwritten police business to being written legislation. 

It brings this debate of profiling into a whole new legal realm. 

 

And just to add, that wasn't targeted at you, just clarifying my opinion. I've stated from the beginning, both here and IRL, that alot of the legislation in AZ opens up the door to racial profiling, and an unhealthy xenophobia.

 

But in the end, the US is organized in a way to balance out extremes, and I have no doubt it will do so in this case. And I think that this is a product of apathy in the federal government when it comes to dealing with immigration. If there was more effort on a national level to deal with this, or at least attention from a large enough group of politicians, it wouldn't come to desperate measures.

 

But living in a border state, sentiments aren't exaclty pleasant towards illegal immigrants. And you know who are the most vocal around here? Hispanic people. I have many hispanic friends and coworkers, all of whom are respectable, law abiding citizens, who despise the image that this whole situation is creating.

 

That, however, is really an aside to my main point-the government needs to realize that this is a powder keg situation with a short fuse, and that can't be stated enough. Something needs to be done, and I applaud AZ for making those steps.

 

And I think from reading your posts that we're in basic agreement on this, as far as the need for something to be done countered by the need to be mindful of personal liberties when creating / modifying laws. Especially when it comes to profiling.

 

This is most definately one of those issues that seperates the real leaders. This is the kind of thing we pay politicians to sort out for us, because it's a very complicated, multi layered issue that requires a genuine, extensive knowledge of both legal and human elements. I don't envy those having to make these decisions, but in the end, that's what they make the $$$ for, so I also feel no pity for them. The powers that be need to get on the ball with this issue, IMO.

Common sense is a dangerous thing to try and rely on. 

It doesn't matter what is foreseen or not, because the first time it actually happens, foresight becomes null. It is legally OK in the eyes of the law in Arizona, due to the bill, for the police to pull someone over because they have brown skin and a Mexican flag on their vehicle, because it all falls under the umbrella of "Suspicion of illegal immigration." 

Ben Franklin would like a word. 

What you'll find is that the majority of the people who oppose the Arizona bill do so for the reasons I oppose it. There is pretty much nobody other than the standard handfull of full amnesty radicals who oppose the bill for any other reason than the civil liberties issue it brings about for current U.S. citizens living in Arizona. 

Despite what OS says about me being a bleeding heart and enjoying that illegal aliens break the law, you know my stance on the whole thing, and you know why I oppose the bill. 

 

The unfortunate problem with this whole issue is that partisan politics reduces even the most vital problem to a playing card in political games. This just happens to be the hot card of the moment, and both sides are too wary of what the other one is doing to sit down and find a bipartisan solution.

 

For me, the main issues are, again, preserving individual freedoms while at the same time enforcing laws that are on the books. Seems simple enough, but there are lots of issues complicating it, not the least being the need to remain loyal to party lines.

 

But you're exactly right. Our elected officials are so concerned with convincing the public that what they're doing is right, I think they often forget that they're elected because they're supposed to know more than us

 

Which is the issue I always drew with the idea of the "average Joe" politician. If Joe could run the country, we wouldn't pay Sam six figures and  finance him millions in campaing to do it.

 

I'm ADD'ing again  I'll stop now.

If I've said it once, I'll say it a few more times: Reforming and streamlining the immigration process so that people willing to work and pay into the system don't have to wait around in the system for upwards of six years is how you FIX the problem. 

Right now we have a slashed artery gushing blood. Some people say it's fine, let it bleed, it's natural. Some are saying to wrap everything up in really expensive bandages really tight and it'll be fine. 

Until we actually perform surgery - as in fix the reason the blood is coming out - we're going to have the same problems over and over and over. 

Reforming immigration = the surgery. 

I don't see wide-sweeping positive immigration reform happening any time soon. 

There are too many opponents of reform who think rounding up anywhere between 12 million and 15 million people and exporting them all is the best way to spend our effort and - most importantly money - instead of finding out how many of them have a clean record, a job, and the desire to become a legit American, and having them work through a reformed system. 

There are also too many people who view retroactive immigration reform as amnesty. 

And, on the other side, there are the handful of radicals who think we should have open borders everywhere, and any reform that isn't that is met with angry protests.  

You've not actually read this thread, have you? 

 

 

So, this whole thing is about liberal outrage over "show me your papers"...

 

And yet...

 

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/11/cant-make-it-dem-rep-who-opposes-photo-id-vote-requiring-photo-id-town-h -  

 

 

This is where some kind of compromise is going to have to be met. Otherwise we're back to the problem of trying to afford the money and manpower to track down, contact, detain, process and deport somewhere between 12 million people and 15 million people. 

I've proposed a system with Tallen in another thread, but it essentially would be a retroactive upgrade to the immigration system. If you were in the country illegally and wished to get on track to become a citizen, you'd need to apply to become a citizen within a very strict period of time and pass the needed criteria: No criminal arrests while in the U.S., no previous felonies in the country you came from, you hold a job and are able to pay taxes. 

If you meet this criteria, you can start working to become a citizen and stay in the U.S., and under my new imaginary system, begin paying income and state level taxes like any other citizen. 

If you don't meet the criteria, or you refuse to become documented, you are subject to immediate arrest, deportation and blacklisting. 

Did the people who could apply break the law? Yes, but I feel like this solution is simply a better use of our time, men and money. 

I see your point, but the truth is if they wanted to be here legitimately they would have at least in some way, shape or form attempted to do so the correct way.

Some of them, yes. 

But, you have to put on your empathy hat for a minute. A lot of illegal Mexican immigrants are coming from the northern provinces of Mexico, where there is wide-spread drug related violence with the Cartels running the show. Not to mention the extreme poverty. 

If you just want to raise your family, but the only jobs to be had are working for the drug cartels, which puts you at their mercy completely, meaning that if you cross them they murder your family, and increases the likelihood that a rival drug cartel kicks in your door and murders your family, and you are close to the U.S. border, do you 1) File the paperwork and sit in Mexico for would could be a six year process, more if you cannot afford a lawyer (You can't), or 2) Make a run for it. 

What they did wasn't right. Not at all. They broke the law. But at least you can understand WHY a lot of them broke the law. 

BTW, PAINTBALL1, merc, stratoaxe, I appreciate being able to have a legitimate debate. You don't get that anymore around here now that certain members have made it their habit to take a steaming dump on every thread. 

*EDIT* Spoke too soon. 

You are adding in words that completely change the meaning and are not in the bill.  The bill doesn't say lawfully stop, it says make lawful contact.  A police officer walking down the sidewalk and saying hello to someone is lawful contact.

I thought this thread stayed well-spoken and thought out. 

 

 

agentwhale007 wrote:   You don't get that anymore around here now that certain members have made it their habit to take a steaming dump on every thread.  *EDIT* Spoke too soon.

 

Such as smelling cannabis with 10 other cars on the road while doing 40mph and smoking nothing but a cigarette.