It begins..

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html

[Torvald Von Mansee]

"A representative at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 3TV’s calls after researching the incident and she said this was standard operating procedure."

It'll be cute when the ACLU does a FOIA request on the data supposedly backing that up and prove it untrue.

[GoldenRivet]

tough.

not illegal?

nothing to hide?

then whats the problem?

I would normally be against this sort of thing, but the states have been fighting violent border crime with BOTH hands tied behind their backs.

My hat is off to Arizona... she took a stand against two things

1. Our failure of a federal government

2. violent border state crimes

[AVGWarhawk]

PHOENIX – A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway.



He was at a weigh station....commerical driver with commercial drivers license. Whats the problem? He was not pulled over for the fun of it. The weigh station is open for business...he is a truck driver. He must enter for inspection.


He tells 3TV, “I don't think it's correct, if I have to take my birth certificate with me all the time.”


He needs to carry a Medical Cert card and drivers license as well as proof of insurance. Why not add a birth certificate as part of paperwork required for driving a commercial vehicle?

Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.


The arrest does not look warranted to me. Two forms of ID should have been enough. However I do not know the SOP for this....see below:


A representative at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 3TV’s calls after researching the incident and she said this was standard operating procedure.
The agents needed to verify Abdon was in the country legally and it is not uncommon to ask for someone's birth certificate. She also said this has nothing to do with the proposed bill or racial profiling.

[AngusJS]

Come on! Who leaves home without their birth certificate? I have mine folded up in my wallet. What's the big deal? :roll:

What happens when you're from a different state, and the cop who stops you doesn't trust your certificate?

Conservatives scream about communism constantly, yet now they support Soviet-style document checks?

[AVGWarhawk]

Come on! Who leaves home without their birth certificate? I have mine folded up in my wallet. What's the big deal? :roll:

What happens when you're from a different state, and the cop who stops you doesn't trust your certificate?

Conservatives scream about communism constantly yet now they support Soviet-style document checks?

I happen to agree that the birth cert request was a bit much. I do not carry mine for any reason. I question the SOP as stated by the police in AZ. I'm sure that his commerical license is enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a citizen. Commercial licenses are not just handed out to anyone.

[Turbografx]

tough.

not illegal?

nothing to hide?

then whats the problem?




The problem is harassment based on racial profiling. The problem is placing the burden of proof on the accused to prove that he is a citizen.

I take it you are a white male like myself?

What if our immigration problem was with Ireland, like in the 19th century. To crack down on this I'll just detain people who I "reasonably suspect" of being illegal Irish immigrants (all whites, red-heads, drunks, people who talk funny) unless they have papers to prove otherwise.
Walking your dog without papers? Tough. Bicycled down to the drugstore without papers? Tough. Out minding you own god-damned business without papers? Tough.

As a lawful citizen, don't you think you should be able to live your life and go about your business without being unreasonably detained because of your physical appearance? I certainly do. I think that kind of **** would get old, fast.

[AVGWarhawk]

The problem is placing the burden of proof on the accused to prove that he is a citizen


The burden of proof is laid at our feet every day. Operate a motor vehicle in the state of MD and it is wise to have your drivers license, proof of insurance, current registration and a copy of the emission certificate. Any of these missing...tough luck. Perhaps a new nationwide law should be having a copy of your birth cert is required. I just add it to my other important paperwork. :hmmm:

[Molon Labe]

I'm confused.

I thought the scandal was all about the new Arizona law.

But these were federal ICE agents. Nothing to do with the new law.

What is the relevance here?

[tater]

Showing the CDL would ideally be enough. The problem, of course, is that there are states in the US—like the State next door to Arizona called "New Mexico" that give DLs to illegals!

So the entirely legit requirement to see a DL should be proof of citizenship, but it's NOT. Heck, voter registration uses the DL.

So force everyone to go get a new DL with their birth certificate, passport, etc, then the DL can be used as proper ID as it should be. PLaces like here in NM should get no federal money if they allow illegal aliens to get a DL in the first place.

[AVGWarhawk]

Exacty tater. There needs to be a countrywide law that these items need to be carried with you. It is no different than the DL or SS card.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

tough.

not illegal?

nothing to hide?

then whats the problem?

I would normally be against this sort of thing, but the states have been fighting violent border crime with BOTH hands tied behind their backs.

My hat is off to Arizona... she took a stand against two things

1. Our failure of a federal government

2. violent border state crimes

Would you like it if middle-aged white men were routinely stopped by police, handcuffed, etc?

EDIT: adding on - beaten, having your car go into forfeiture, etc?

[AVGWarhawk]

Would you like it if middle-aged white men were routinely stopped by police, handcuffed, etc?

EDIT: adding on - beaten, having your car go into forfeiture, etc?


Can you show me the 'routinely'? Why at the airport anyone can get the body cavity search by security and no one says a thing?

[tater]

A driver's license should be enough. This would require forcing DL applicants to prove citizenship. I'm fine with this. Require every single DL to be replaced next year, and require proof of citizenship to do so.

Anyone arrested without a DL should face jail and a massive penalty. They should also be investigated WRT citizenship and deported.

Didn't Muhammad Atta get a traffic ticket before 911? One of them did.

BTW, on the "path to citizenship" ANY crime should cancel your progress towards that, AND get you deported, AND result in you never being allowed to reapply. ANY crime, even jaywalking, running a red light, whatever. Be a model would-be citizen or GTFO.

Again, along with a large increase in the allowed number of immigrants or workers from Mexico. No amnesty, though. All 12 million here would need to LEAVE, then come back, or forever live in the shadows.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'm confused.

I thought the scandal was all about the new Arizona law.

But these were federal ICE agents. Nothing to do with the new law.

What is the relevance here?

...

Trig, is that you?

[Turbografx]

The burden of proof is laid at our feet every day. Operate a motor vehicle in the state of MD and it is wise to have your drivers license, proof of insurance, current registration and a copy of the emission certificate. Any of these missing...tough luck. Perhaps a new nationwide law should be having a copy of your birth cert is required. I just add it to my other important paperwork. :hmmm:


The problem is not that you have to have an ID or even that you must have it with you and present it. Rather it is with what conditions are entailed by "reasonable suspicion".

In most things this is clear cut and impartial:

"Reasonable suspicion" of drunk driving would be something like swerving erratically, driving extremely fast or slow, crashing into a lamp-post. I.e. visibly breaking the law/endangering others.

"Reasonable suspicion" of professional mal-practice would include a patient dying from a anesthetic overdose, a house burning down from shoddy wiring, selling drinks to under-aged people. I.e. breaking the law/endangering others.

"Reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant on the other hand is mostly based on your appearance. Being a little too brown or publicly speaking in a language other than English. I.e. not being WASP enough.

[SteamWake]

Got to be more to this story than meets the eye.

I mean the guy had a SS number and they couldent verify that??

"They acted stupidly" :03:

[frau kaleun]

Anyone arrested without a DL should face jail and a massive penalty. They should also be investigated WRT citizenship and deported.

I don't see how having valid DL can be used as proof of legal right to be in this country, unless you are going to require every single person who does have that right to go out and get one just for that purpose, which is ridiculous.

Not everyone drives, or wants to drive, or needs to drive, or is physically able to drive. Why should they have to deal with the freakin' DMV just for the purpose of getting a DL to show authorities to prove they're not here illegally?

[GoldenRivet]

What if our immigration problem was with Ireland, like in the 19th century. To crack down on this I'll just detain people who I "reasonably suspect" of being illegal Irish immigrants (all whites, red-heads, drunks, people who talk funny)

While i see where you are coming from, i offer two valid counter points

1. As far as im aware nobody was detained. you simply have to spend 10 seconds showing a valid proof of citizenship (which as a flight school owner i have to verify everyone's proof if citizenship all the time... so its not any big deal)

2. You say "what if our immigration problem was with ireland"

to that i simply say this...

lets say you are standing in a corner shop one day, and a cop walks in and asks you to put your hands on the counter. He pats you down, checks your ID, radios it in to HQ and in the mean time you dont have any idea what the heck is going on. After about a 10 minute process the cop says

"sorry about that sir, we are trying to aprehend a dangerous suspect in the area, and you match the discription we were given, have a nice day."

ok cool... no big deal IMHO

same difference with the illegal immigrant document check.

if you ask me the United States has become far too sensitive with this whole "profiling" nonsense.

[AVGWarhawk]

The problem is not that you have to have an ID or even that you must have it with you and present it. Rather it is with what conditions are entailed by "reasonable suspicion".

In most things this is clear cut and impartial:

"Reasonable suspicion" of drunk driving would be something like swerving erratically, driving extremely fast or slow, crashing into a lamp-post. I.e. visibly breaking the law/endangering others.

"Reasonable suspicion" of professional mal-practice would include a patient dying from a anesthetic overdose, a house burning down from shoddy wiring, selling drinks to under-aged people. I.e. breaking the law/endangering others.

"Reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant on the other hand is mostly based on your appearance. Being a little too brown or publicly speaking in a language other than English. I.e. not being WASP enough.


In this particular instance the man held a CDL and is required to stop at a weigh stations. He was operating a commercial vehicle. This was not a random selection. He is supposed to provide his CDL, Medical Card and insurance plus his logs. For me that would have need enough ID. However, if the AZ states that SOP is to ask for a Birth Cert then the officer can ask.

I understand the probably cause is assessed by color or language spoken. Thus the profiling associated with this law.

[Turbografx]

ok cool... no big deal IMHO

Unless you don't have any ID on you, in which case you're looking at least an hour of your time. (taken down-town while the appropriate research/paperwork is fetched) For example, I only started driving last year, for 4 years of my adult life I no had legal, portable ID. If someone had asked for my ID at random the best I could have done was a library/credit card.

Also, maybe its not a big deal as far as hassle or time taken is concerned but knowing you were pulled aside based entirely on your skin color has got to get annoying after awhile. You would know it to be inescapable reality for you while others never even get a second-thought. It might be enough to make me undergo the Jackson bleach bath treatment.

[AVGWarhawk]

Unless you don't have any ID on you, in which case you're looking at least an hour of your time. (taken down-town while the appropriate research/paperwork is fetched) For example, I only started driving last year, for 4 years of my adult life I had legal, portable ID. If someone had asked for my ID at random the best I could have done was a library/credit card.

The department of motor vehicle can provide a legal ID card with photo. This is not a drivers license, just a legal ID with photo. Credible evidence of who you are no matter where you go in the US. :up:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

if you ask me the United States has become far too sensitive with this whole "profiling" nonsense.

Would you like it if mentally handicapped, middle-aged white men were profiled?

[GoldenRivet]

Unless you don't have any ID on you, in which case you're looking at least an hour of your time. (taken down-town while the appropriate research/paperwork is fetched) For example, I only started driving last year, for 4 years of my adult life I had legal, portable ID. If someone had asked for my ID at random the best I could have done was a library/credit card.

well what sort of intelligent person leaves the house without ID?

I understand that if a person waits to the age of 50 to get a driver's license then they wont be able to prove who they are from 0-49

so how do we solve that? national ID?

I lean both ways on this issue

1. i dont support the power of the government to say "papers please" at random - ie... you have to have been speeding, have a tail light out, robbed a bank, shot someone etc

2. i do think that America has a serious illegal immigration issue that needs to be handled. and so far, our Republican AND democrat governments have failed at doing this. (and other things)

[AVGWarhawk]

Would you like it if mentally handicapped, middle-aged white men were profiled?

I don't know, you tell me. Why was it everytime my dad went to airport he was always pulled out of line by security and searched? He was in his 70's using a cane. Without fail he was searched. EVERYTIME!

Why is it my boss with a last name of Sanchez is on the terrorist watch list?

[GoldenRivet]

Would you like it if mentally handicapped, middle-aged white men were profiled?

what are they guilty of? if it is a threat to the national economy or security... profile the **** out of them.

PROFILE ME i dont care.

as long as im profiled because i broke the law - thats fine.

i dont support pulling people over every 2 minutes just to say "proof of citizenship please"

however, if they are engaged in a routine traffic stop, or if they are breaking the law or doing any other thing that requires that certain documents must be shown... go ahead, stop them, ask them for a proof of citizenship. it is painless and should be something that could be verified in less than 90 seconds

[tater]

I don't see how having valid DL can be used as proof of legal right to be in this country, unless you are going to require every single person who does have that right to go out and get one just for that purpose, which is ridiculous.

Not everyone drives, or wants to drive, or needs to drive, or is physically able to drive. Why should they have to deal with the freakin' DMV just for the purpose of getting a DL to show authorities to prove they're not here illegally?

You can get an ID card at the DMV as well, without having to drive. It's useful for cashing checks, proof of ID with a credit card, etc.

In this case the guy had a CDL. He should have to prove ID. Again, the CDL should have been enough, but democrats (it's always them) have diluted the usefulness of DLs by allowing illegals to get them. It is the law in NM that illegals can get a DL. Pure insanity.

[GoldenRivet]

Pure insanity.

The USA is no longer a valid nation.

it is simply a title applied to a land mass.

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't see how having valid DL can be used as proof of legal right to be in this country, unless you are going to require every single person who does have that right to go out and get one just for that purpose, which is ridiculous.

Not everyone drives, or wants to drive, or needs to drive, or is physically able to drive. Why should they have to deal with the freakin' DMV just for the purpose of getting a DL to show authorities to prove they're not here illegally?


The department of motor vehicle issues legit id cards for non-drivers also. Photo included. My mother-in-law never drove but she had this ID card from the motor vehicle dept. :up:

[Tribesman]

however, if they are engaged in a routine traffic stop,or if they are breaking the law or doing any other thing that requires that certain documents must be shown... go ahead, stop them, ask them for a proof of citizenship. it is painless and should be something that could be verified in less than 90 seconds
You really want to bankrupt Arizona don't ya.

But anyway didn't anyone inform this chancer in the story that the State law isn't really law yet and hasn't even been given a definate start date, plus it is not likely that it will ever be in its current form.

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh this is funny....

The law in question - isn't even in effect yet. This is just some yahoo with a chip on his shoulder thinking he can raise a stink. This has nothing to do with the immigration control law. I would have thought Torvald, that you would have been a little better informed than to link this to something that isn't even effective as law yet....

As for the SOP - I don't know what they are, but if you drive in an area commercially, its on you to know what the regulations are.

[Molon Labe]

You really want to bankrupt Arizona don't ya.

But anyway didn't anyone inform this chancer in the story that the State law isn't really law yet and hasn't even been given a definate start date, plus it is not likely that it will ever be in its current form.

As I mentioned earlier, this was a Federal agent enforcing Federal immigration law, not an AZ police officer enforcing the new AZ law, and the entire incident has nothing whatsoever to do with the new AZ law.

[tater]

You really want to bankrupt Arizona don't ya.

But anyway didn't anyone inform this chancer in the story that the State law isn't really law yet and hasn't even been given a definate start date, plus it is not likely that it will ever be in its current form.

Why would getting rid of deadbeat illegals bankrupt the State?

Illegals are a net loss to State government revenues, period.

Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the country thanks to illegals, too. Something needs to be done.

[Freiwillige]

There is more to the story than is being told here. First off he was asked several evaluating questions to which his reply's set off red flags. That is why he was detained. False documentation does abound in the illegal community.

And the fact remains that we do not have 100,000+ Swiss citizens flooding across our borders yearly in Arizona.


And lastly anybody who thinks that illegal immigration helps our economy is a little uninformed. The massive costs of health care education and incarceration far outstrips the little local money they spend in our economy. A vast amount of that money is sent home to their family's to pay for the next wave coming here. Send every single one of them here illegally packing.

[Tribesman]

Why would getting rid of deadbeat illegals bankrupt the State?

Two reasons, firstly the lawsuits from the inevitable screw ups.
secondly....well you have read the bill now havn't you, how is it they get rid of them from the State?
Knee jerk populism strikes again:har:

[August]

As I mentioned earlier, this was a Federal agent enforcing Federal immigration law, not an AZ police officer enforcing the new AZ law, and the entire incident has nothing whatsoever to do with the new AZ law.

I don't think they're listening... :DL

[Molon Labe]

I don't think they're listening... :DL


Well, I think we're up to 3-4 people now that have noticed.

[CaptainHaplo]

Why should they let mere facts and truth get in the way of their distortion and pandering to the left that they always do?

[tater]

Two reasons, firstly the lawsuits from the inevitable screw ups.
secondly....well you have read the bill now havn't you, how is it they get rid of them from the State?
Knee jerk populism strikes again:har:

It's absolutely a pressure to remove them, or at least for them to avoid interactions with government (like wasting taxpayer money on schools, and medical care for them). They live in great numbers in the border states because the border states enable them. Here in NM they can have a legal driver's license for christ sake. That's just NUTS.

Muhammad Atta II could show up here tomorrow, and my idiotic State would hand him a DL, no questions asked. How is that not insane?

Lawsuits? Chump change. Arizona loses billions to illegals, they'll maybe lose millions to lawsuits—and any that face an AZ jury will be tough fights, believe me. The crime rates there are high—because of mexican nationals. What's the dollar value on a murdered citizen by an illegal who should never have been here to commit the crime. I'm well aware of statistics that show illegals to be LESS violent per capita that similar legal demographics, but none the less, every single crime committed by an illegal is an EXCESS crime, that is 100% preventable by securing the border.

[Tribesman]

Lawsuits? Chump change.
Really?
Given the nature of the expected problems they could end up with a vast rash of individual cases, a pile of class actions.
Plus of course as it was predictable it would seem that punitive damages would be in order and they are by there very nature not chump change.
Not forgetting that the state and local authorities down to the lowest level would have to pay for their own defence.

and any that face an AZ jury will be tough fights, believe me.
Do you envisage these potential civil suits being heard in the State courts or Arizonas federal district courts?
Even if they are can you see an Arizona juries particular views having much legal bearing when it is kicked upstairs in the appeals process?
Those "tough fights" will just add to the eventual debt the taxpayer gains.

[tater]

The majority of Americans support the notion that illegals are criminals by virtue of their presence in the US. Poll after poll shows this to be true.

Regardless, lawsuits will be chump change, millions at best.

The only viable lawsuit would be someone pulled over for NO REASON except they look Mexican—heck, I'd agree with that as a problem. Pulled over for a tail light out? No case. Checking papers on day workers? I have no problem there, period. I'd check LEGAL people for valid SS cards since they clearly need to provide them to their potential employers so the employers can pay FICA. I'd grab up anyone pulling over to hire day workers, too. Make sure they have W-4 forms ready in the truck, then follow them back to make sure they submit them (LOL).

[baggygreen]

Im astounded that you guys are happy to hand out social security and drivers licenses to illegals!

Taking things a long way down the track, if the fed govt tried intervening on the AZ law (provided it gets through largely unchanged), what happens? I don't know much about the internals of the US, would or could AZ seceed from the US? Would or could TX join them?

[AngusJS]

I don't know much about the internals of the US, would or could AZ seceed from the US? Would or could TX join them? We can always hope.

[CaptainHaplo]

At least one Texas state rep is looking to propose a very similiar bill in the next few days. :yeah:

[tater]

Great, they'll all move here.

There is a plus side for business in neighboring states, however. With many more illegals competing for jobs, you can be more picky about who you hire, and even bid their hourly rate DOWN. Ideally, you could hire them at the types of wages paid in asia!

That I suppose is an alternate take on reform. Remove ALL protections from illegals in the workplace. No OSHA rules apply to illegals. No minimum wages, nothing. Make working as an illegal so terrible (at the discretion of the employer) no one would want to do it.

[August]

The only way states can expect to maintain their "states rights" is to exercise them.

[tater]

Good analysis of the law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?hp

[AVGWarhawk]

PHOENIX (AP) - Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by. Arizona's sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won't take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state's underground economy




The law's supporters hope the departure of illegal immigrants will help dismantle part of the underground economy here and create jobs for thousands of legal residents in a state with a 9.6 percent unemployment rate.



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100429/D9FCDCN00.html

[tater]

Excellent analysis again (by a prosecutor, no less):

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=

Now, why do I say the Arizona law is more restrictive of police than is federal law? Well, the Supreme Court has held that one common rationale for a permissible Terry stop is to ascertain the identity of the person who is detained. That is, federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place.

The Arizona law, by contrast, does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person's immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific "reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien.


The more I read, the better this law seems to be.

The complaints seem to be similar to lay people talking in circles about science because they don't understand that in science, a word used in general English ("theory," typically) means something very specific, and very different in science. The "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" wording has a very specific, narrow meaning in law. So someone ca CLAIM that this is a broad brush to detain, when in fact it is very restrictive on when the question can even be asked.

[Tribesman]

The "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" wording has a very specific, narrow meaning in law.
Which is why there will be the law suits.
Look at the problems NY has with its application of laws being deemed outside the narrow meaning.

So someone ca CLAIM that this is a broad brush to detain, when in fact it is very restrictive on when the question can even be asked.
Which if you look back is the main reason I have said this law is dumb.
It will be expensive and not work.

[tater]

Which is why there will be the law suits.
Look at the problems NY has with its application of laws being deemed outside the narrow meaning.


Which if you look back is the main reason I have said this law is dumb.
It will be expensive and not work.

This law is MORE restrictive on officers than extant, federal law. A fed can ask for proof of citizenship for no reason except to attach an identity to you. The cops in AZ can pull over a car for speeding, and they are still not allowed to ask for proof of citizenship without reasonable suspicion, and race is explicitly not allowed to play the only role there. Also, having a valid DL is explicitly acceptable as ID in the law. Reasonable proof would be you pull over a van. The people inside are hispanic—that's not enough. There are 30 people crammed into the van... getting there. The van is driving north on a back road in the middle of no-place known to be an illegal vehicle crossing point.

People protesting this are being stupid. Seriously, they are no different than creationists misusing "theory" as a word. This law will pass constitutional muster. I initially was a little concerned about profiling, but as it stands, if this law profiles, so does the federal law we've always had.

[tater]

McCarthy (prosecutor of the 1st trade center bombing) asks "will it work?"

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmZhMWFjMjBkNzA2MTU4NTZiNDMyOGUwM2QwYjE3OWE=

He says there are valid concerns about the practicality since in effect, this law doesn't do all that much (showing the protest to be the hyperbole that it is). None the less, it can have some good effect in spite of this.

I think these are valid concerns, though they don't fatally undermine the point of having the law. To be sure, there will be lots of instances where a false ID won't trigger discovery of the fact that someone is in Arizona and the U.S. illegally. I believe, however, that some false IDs will trigger that discovery, and some will be sufficiently sloppy false IDs that they will increase the evidence of criminality, amounting to the probable cause needed to justify an arrest (e.g., for obstruction of justice or making false statements to a police officer). That could then trigger the more extensive arrest processing that Bill refers to, during which fingerprints will be taken and the person's true identity (and lack of lawful immigration status) will be discovered.

I'd also note that, when police stop people on suspicion of criminal behavior that is not serious (e.g., a minor traffic violation), the law does not permit or encourage police to detain people interminably so an immigration status check can be done. Instead, the law says the attempt to determine whether a suspected illegal alien is in fact an illegal alien must be "reasonable" and only undertaken "when practicable." That makes it sound like lawmakers probably did realize that cops often don't get quick, definitive answers when making inquiries of federal databases. That's yet another demonstration that the law is an appropriate, measured response to Arizona's illegal immigration problem.

Still, Bill's point is a good one: there will be many, many instances where the law either won't work or won't be necessary. I support the statute, but we will have to monitor its effectiveness in order to make a reasoned judgment about whether it was really worth doing in light of all the demagoguery it has prompted. I suspect the greatest value of the law will be the message it conveys to illegals that Arizona is serious about cracking down. That by itself will cause a reduction in Arizona's illegal immigration problem. And while many illegals will simply go to other states, at least some will decide not to enter our country unlawfully.

Sorry for posting analysis that's not breathless in either direction, but well considered thoughts by an actual prosecutor. ;)

Oh, and to stop people misreading the legalise, the wording is being changed:

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.


So they'll only ask for proof with reasonable suspicion after they are already stopping you for a reason they'd have stopped you in absence of the new law (same as what was in the law as signed, but clarified for those being willfully obtuse).

[Tribesman]

This law is MORE restrictive on officers than extant, federal law.
Which is why they are going to get all the law suits.
You really did miss the nature of my objections to this law didn't you.
Read the first three posts I put in Steamwakes "Obama rips pending Arizona immigrant law" topic.
Its all about the way they are going to have to attempt to enforce the law along a very restrictive line without making the easy slip across the line into illegal behaviour.
It will effectively put the police depts. dancing on the head of a pin.
It would have made far more sense, would have been cheaper, quicker and more effectiver to get more of Arizonas police the required federal accreditation on immigration enforcement instead of drawing up some knee jerk legislation to appease the locals before an upcoming election.

[tater]

So your concern is for the poor police?

I want the illegals to get hassled as much as possible. I want any interaction they have with government to be frightening to them. I'm stunned that the US government advertises to let illegals know that the census is not there to report them. I know for a fact that they game the healthcare system. Try to find out how to report medicaid abuse. Try. It's instructive. You will google, and instantly be able to report, online... doctors. Illegals using medicaid? Apparently doesn't happen, no web reporting (that would assault their civil rights, I guess).

I'm open to the argument it won't be effective, but we have loads of laws that are not effective—for example Federal immigration laws that are entirely un-enforced.

[Tribesman]

So your concern is for the poor police?

My concern is that the legislation is a waste of time, money and effort.

I'm open to the argument it won't be effective, but we have loads of laws that are not effective—for example Federal immigration laws that are entirely un-enforced.
Is the answer to something that is not effective making something else that is not effective?
Is the answer to laws that are unenforced to make laws that are unenforcable?
Your President called this legislation misguided, I call it plain stupid.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/files/2010/04/mike04292010.jpg

[tater]

I don't think it's ineffective. If that was true the protests by apologists for illegal aliens would be less. That the illegals and their allies are screaming is proof it is effective.

The current federal laws are simply not enforced enough. The local governments—without a law like AZ's—are not ALLOWED to enforce the federal laws. The first illegal to be tossed that would otherwise have committed a violent crime on a citizen "pays" for this legislation.

I live in a border State. I sometimes watch the local news. The crime blotter is a language lesson in proper spanish pronunciation of names. Many of the perps in question are illegals (they don't say "illegal alien" as they should, they typically call them "mexican nationals.").

[Tribesman]

don't think it's ineffective. If that was true the protests by apologists for illegal aliens would be less. That the illegals and their allies are screaming is proof it is effective.

So you measure a kne jerk reaction by a knee jerk reaction. That ain't very clever is it.
Its bloody simple tater, you yourself have said that much of the objections happen to come from people that don't even know what the law really is that they are objecting to.
Just because the loadmouth ranters don't know what they are talking about doesn't mean that what they are talking about is really OK.

The local governments—without a law like AZ's—are not ALLOWED to enforce the federal laws.
I was going to let that slide, I really was going to avoid saying you are having a Theo moment with your Caps Lock, but honestly ............ don't talk crap.
What you just wrote is absolute bollox, it has no foundation in reality at all in the slightest even with a really big stretch of the imagination.

[tater]

So you measure a kne jerk reaction by a knee jerk reaction. That ain't very clever is it.
Its bloody simple tater, you yourself have said that much of the objections happen to come from people that don't even know what the law really is that they are objecting to.
Just because the loadmouth ranters don't know what they are talking about doesn't mean that what they are talking about is really OK.


I was going to let that slide, I really was going to avoid saying you are having a Theo moment with your Caps Lock, but honestly ............ don't talk crap.
What you just wrote is absolute bollox, it has no foundation in reality at all in the slightest even with a really big stretch of the imagination.

Google a little. According to the ACLU, local police are not allowed to ask immigration status, and they tell illegals not to answer any such questions.

Ohio, same thing. (just googling and looking). I know they do not in NM. NY considers immigration status "private" information, they can't ask, etc. Many cities have passed laws forbidding their police and services from asking status.

The only way around this is a State law that municipalities cannot vote themselves around.

Lovely protesters:
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ZZ1CDF8D96.jpg

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/anymeans.jpg

Pro-criminal (illegals are criminals, after all)protesters turn to vandalism:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqDBGmaJF45-4xA1CXCFeBGQPBkQD9FF2SAO0
Eighteen businesses were damaged, with the cost of repairs estimated at between $50,000 and $100,000. No injuries were reported.

Protesters in favor of criminal entry into the US attack peaceful counter-protesters:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7417829

[Tribesman]

Google a little. According to the ACLU, local police are not allowed to ask immigration status, and they tell illegals not to answer any such questions.

Don't waste your time with google, if you want to know the legislation go to the governmenty dept. that deals with the issue.
So in this case you want to start with Homeland security then go to immigration and customs.
Then what you want is Immigration and nationality act, or more specificly the amendments to that act in force since 1996 which are known as the Illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act which deals with the delegation of federal powers to states police and prisons.

[tater]

Don't waste your time with google, if you want to know the legislation go to the governmenty dept. that deals with the issue.
So in this case you want to start with Homeland security then go to immigration and customs.
Then what you want is Immigration and nationality act, or more specificly the amendments to that act in force since 1996 which are known as the Illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act which deals with the delegation of federal powers to states police and prisons.

Why would I go to a laundry list of FEDERAL departments that have no impact at all on local law enforcement? There are 50 states, and the laws related to law enforcement vary for each and every one of them. You really lack an understanding about US government. In addition, as I said above, even cities have their own rules in the absence of explicit State directives like the new law in AZ.

The bulk of AZ without the law might ask immigration related questions at times—but a hippie town like Sedona might NOT ever ask, and might pass a local law to forbid asking. Sedona becomes a haven for illegals, then. The only answer for the State is to pass a law overriding that.

The US is not the UK, it's far more like the EU, actually, with States replacing member states as entities. Laws vary hugely State to State in the US.

[Tribesman]

Why would I go to a laundry list of FEDERAL departments that have no impact at all on local law enforcement?
Because it might stop you making nonsensical claims about the laws like you have just done again.
It is ridiculous for you to claim that the federal dept has no impact on local law enforcement when that particular law in question does exactly that.
I would have thought that a fairly long running story in Arizona would have informed you of the facts already.
A rather well known county police dept. is having problems with the its local enforcement of these federal laws, as it is having problems keeping its officers actions all nice and legal.

[SteamWake]

and we come full circle.

The state law was passed because the federal goverment would not enforce its own laws.

[tater]

Because it might stop you making nonsensical claims about the laws like you have just done again.
It is ridiculous for you to claim that the federal dept has no impact on local law enforcement when that particular law in question does exactly that.
I would have thought that a fairly long running story in Arizona would have informed you of the facts already.
A rather well known county police dept. is having problems with the its local enforcement of these federal laws, as it is having problems keeping its officers actions all nice and legal.

Again, you don't understand US law enforcement.

State and municipal laws cannot be in conflict with the Constitution, or most Federal law (they can be, actually, but then it gets resolved in court, typically, deciding it one way or another). Federal law, however, does not get enforced by local law enforcement. If a Fed law is broken, and not a State/local law, it goes to a Federal Prosecutor, for example. In downtown ABQ here, there are 4 courthouses all next to each other (across the streets, actually). State, County, Metro Court, and a Federal Courthouse. Which jurisdiction determines which court. Which jurisdiction also partially determines which law enforcement agency arrests the perp (a local cop can bust someone, then the case gets passed to a federal prosecutor—in some cases they go from one to the next). Immigration has typically been the bailiwick of INS, BP, etc, for enforcement.

In many municipalities—say Santa Fe, New Mexico—the authorities are forbidden from asking immigration status. Santa Fe is a "sanctuary city." No municipal agency is allowed to enforce immigration law. Federal law making being in the country without papers illegal is meaningless in that case—unless the person asking is a fed.

The only way around this is a State law prohibiting enactment of such an ordinance. Some States have done this. All the AZ law does is to go one step father, and mandate enforcing Federal immigration law by State and local enforcement agencies.

[Tribesman]

Again, you don't understand US law enforcement.

And again you don't undferstand, the whole purpose of that provision in the federal immigration laws is to delegate those powers to State bodies.

Federal law, however, does not get enforced by local law enforcement.
It does where there is a delegation of powers and a memorandum of agreement like there is provided for in the immigration laws.
If a Fed law is broken, and not a State/local law, it goes to a Federal Prosecutor,
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
This is simple stuff tater.
Have some examples.
Arizona dept of corrections , San Bernadino (CA) sherriffs dept. Alabama State police, Davidson County (TN) sherriffs dept....are they local, state or federal bodies?
Immigration has typically been the bailiwick of INS, BP, etc, for enforcement.
So how are all those local bodies allowed to do immigration enforcement now?
Oh yeah, its a little law that specificly delegates to local bodies for enforcement

[CaptainHaplo]

Tater, haven't you realized that some people know more about how the US works (vs how its supposed to be setup to run) than those of us who deal with the system every day? After all, they got "book learnin" from that day they went to school, and they got all them there websites on the internetz that tell em all about how evil and homophobic and racist we all are, and that if it weren't for the benevolent government then why, we'd just be taken all them immergrants out back and use'nem for target practice.

Never argue with an idiot, he will bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience....

[tater]

It is NOT delegated to the States. You are 100% wrong. It is proactively (LOL, not nearly enough) enforced by the Feds, and permitted to be enforced by the States explicitly—note that this is not really required, the States are not Constitutionally forbidden from enforcing it (which is not at all the same as "delegating," which presumes that the States are ordered to do so by the Feds).. I would not presume to tell you how Ireland works after a brief google session. You haven't the first clue. The Feds have a system in place whereby the State and local authorities can VOLUNTARILY train with DHS to enforce immigration laws.

Governor Richardson ((D-NM, my governor), former Sec. of Energy, and Ambassador to the UN under Clinton, and was our Congress critter before that) was making the TV show rounds over the weekend claiming that the AZ law was illegal because it has local authorities doing a job that he claims can ONLY be done by the feds—enforcing immigration laws (he's wrong).

You really do not have the first clue. I've seen this before here, and on other forums where people overseas assume the US is far more centrally controlled than it is.

Enforcement of immigration law is voluntarily up to the states and locals, and many have in fact passed laws to explicitly NEVER enforce immigration law (look up sanctuary states and cities (the wiki entry has an very old city list, it's much expanded now)).

That is just fact, and if you think otherwise, you are clueless.

[Platapus]

Never argue with an idiot, he will bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience....


Don't be so hard on yourself. Sometimes you have good posts. :D:haha:

[Iceman]

This was passed by the Governor...it willl change if enough people want it to change....same as the Sheriff we have elected over and over....most people here like being tough on crime.

We like that he is enforcing the law and making the cockroaches scurry when the light is turned on....nothing new is being done it is all sabre rattling.....nothing can stem the tide of illegals except landmined borders, and threat of execution if caught...short of that this is all politics and grandstanding and everyone knows it.

If is virtually impossible to secure any border from a determined criminal but if the actual punishment were harsher like in certain countries then people would not commit crimes....we are talking about crimes here....he who does not enter by the door is a thief and a robber.

and Wed on my way from job to job I will drive past Hundreds...100's of ILLEGAL aliens standing on the streets of Arizona...looking for work...Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satify his soul but if he is caught...then ya gotta pay the price.

Be nice if the world could pull togther it resources and conquer poverty....maybe the next life.

[Tribesman]

It is NOT delegated to the States.
So the act that delegates doesn't delegate:har:
But I see what you are trying to do there,
I wrote "the whole purpose of that provision in the federal immigration laws is to delegate those powers to State bodies."
See the difference.

and permitted to be enforced by the States explicitly
Make your mind up, you said they couldn't enforce them.
The Feds have a system in place whereby the State and local authorities can VOLUNTARILY train with DHS to enforce immigration laws.

So they can enforce them, that would be the law that delegated authority through a memorandum of agreement.
Enforcement of immigration law is voluntarily up to the states and locals
Yet you have been saying it was not allowed.
it has local authorities doing a job that he claims can ONLY be done by the feds—enforcing immigration laws (he's wrong).

So on that detail he was saying the same as you have been saying, so you are both wrong
and many have in fact passed laws to explicitly NEVER enforce immigration law
Yet as you claimed they were not allowed anyway, why would they need such a law.

Just to remind you of your claims
The local governments—without a law like AZ's—are not ALLOWED to enforce the federal laws.
Yes they can, where there is a delegation of authority as allowed under the federal immigration legislation....but you know that now don't you(even if you are having a bit of a problem accepting it)
Google a little. According to the ACLU, local police are not allowed to ask immigration status
Yes they can, where there is a delegation of authority as allowed under federal immigration law....but you know that now don't you(even if you are having a bit of a problem accepting it)

But isn't it funny, that last bit about googling for answers when Haplo wrote....After all, they got "book learnin" from that day they went to school, and they got all them there websites on the internetz
But don't worry, he is just a troll.

[SteamWake]

This was passed by the Governor...it willl change if enough people want it to change.

Strangely enough the law is popular with a goodly majority of the legal citizens of the state. But your not going to hear about that.

[Tribesman]

Strangely enough the law is popular with a goodly majority of the legal citizens of the state.
Thats amazing, a piece of knee jerk populism for local consumption is popular locally. Wonders never cease.:har:
But your not going to hear about that.
If you ever took off that tin foil and stopped worrying about secret armies of nazi dentists and a global cabal running the media you would have noticed the wide coverage those in favour of the legislation have got throughout the media.

[CaptainHaplo]

I still have to laugh.....

Illegal - means breaking the law.

State and local authorities - are sworn to uphold the law.

Seems pretty clear - but then - those who aren't happy are usually the types that scream how we shouldn't use the term "illegal", but instead call them "undocumented"

Illegal is illegal - and law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law. How racist.....

*funny - is it arizona's fault that the majority of people choosing to break the law are of one "race"? Maybe all the illegal mexicans are racist against themselves since they are the ones making themselves criminals by choosing to break the law.

[Tribesman]

I still have to laugh.....

Illegal - means breaking the law.

State and local authorities - are sworn to uphold the law.


Yeah funny isn't it.
It means they cannot uphold the law if it involves breaking the law.

Seems pretty clear
It is very clear, but you clearly don't understand it in the slightest:rotfl2:

[AVGWarhawk]

Personally I believe the 'undocumented' should move to Galway , Eire. I understand the people there are very accepting of the shenanigans by these wayward undocumented folks. :DL

[August]

Personally I believe the 'undocumented' should move to Galway , Eire. I understand the people there are very accepting of the shenanigans by these wayward undocumented folks. :DL

Apparently they have folks in that town who are self proclaimed experts on everything.

[SteamWake]

Thats amazing, a piece of knee jerk populism for local consumption is popular locally. Wonders never cease.:har:

If you ever took off that tin foil and stopped worrying about secret armies of nazi dentists and a global cabal running the media you would have noticed the wide coverage those in favour of the legislation have got throughout the media.

Polls have shown that nearly 60% of the pepole in arizona approve of the law. Yea I know you dident hear about that maybe you need to tune your tin foil hat a little.

[tater]

So the act that delegates doesn't delegate:har:
But I see what you are trying to do there,
I wrote "the whole purpose of that provision in the federal immigration laws is to delegate those powers to State bodies."
See the difference.

No, you miss the point. Federal immigration law ALLOWS States to voluntarily join training programs to enforce immigration law. Nothing more. Delegation (constitutionally) means that the States are write the laws themselves. Ie: "here is a federal jurisdiction, we (the feds) are going to pass on it, and explicitly pass that authority to YOU, the states." The federal laws simply do not do this.

That this is not the case is demonstrable by the existence of federal authorities tasked solely with enforcing immigration law.

Make your mind up, you said they couldn't enforce them.

You did not understand (or read). The ban on enforcement is LOCAL, not federal. There are States and municipalities that explicitly forbid their enforcement agencies from enforcing immigration law in the US. Until recently Phoenix, Arizona was one of them. There are many others (Santa Fe and Albuquerque, for example). Our local police here in ABQ are NOT ALLOWED TO ASK IMMIGRATION STATUS. Not under any condition, not ever. If the feds want to bust someone for being illegal, it's up to the feds to chime in and charge him, cause APD ain't gonna do it, it's against ABQ policy. The only way to change this would be to change all the sanctuary laws in all the towns, or to pass ONE law at State level that bans the practice. That is what AZ just did.



So they can enforce them, that would be the law that delegated authority through a memorandum of agreement.

Yet you have been saying it was not allowed.

So on that detail he was saying the same as you have been saying, so you are both wrong

No, again, you lack basically any understanding on how the US works. States and even towns and cities have specific laws on the books that disallow their own agencies from enforcing federal immigration law. There is no federal mandate for states and municipalities to enforce immigration law at all. It is permitted, but not required. The only way for a State to have a consistent, statewide policy is to, duh, pass one. That is what AZ just did.


Yet as you claimed they were not allowed anyway, why would they need such a law.

Just to remind you of your claims

Yes they can, where there is a delegation of authority as allowed under the federal immigration legislation....but you know that now don't you(even if you are having a bit of a problem accepting it)

You keep repeating the same misunderstanding. The Feds do not pass immigration enforcement to the States. They simply allow voluntary help to federal authorities. Many states, and in the case of AZ specific municipalities have laws that LOCALLY disallow enforcing immigration law.

Federal-State-County-municipal

The federal laws on immigration CAN be enforced (though some argue this, actually) by all 4 levels. The only level REQUIRED to enforce it is federal. The State and county can have laws on the books, and a single town can still pass a local law that forbids their PD from enforcing it unless the State laws explicitly require all municipalities to comply.

Yes they can, where there is a delegation of authority as allowed under federal immigration law....but you know that now don't you(even if you are having a bit of a problem accepting it)

Seriously, where did you learn about US government? They teach you once about it in grade school or something? I can't recall how many times I've seen Europeans on forums assume that the US is monolithic, and highly centralized.

[Tribesman]

No, you miss the point. Federal immigration law ALLOWS States to voluntarily join training programs to enforce immigration law
So thats what I have been saying all along:yeah:
well bugger, me sideways and call me sandra Tater, it ain't often we see someone doing a post where they say someone is wrong but posts a piece fthat shows they were right and yet stillcontiues in thier wingnut idoelogyto present crap that is wrong.
But OK feel free to continue posting stuff that throws your own arguements out the window.
After all its you that has been claiming that States cannot do what you have just said they can do.
So, bloody simple ain't it , was you telling flat out lies or was you reactionary bull causing you to tell flat out lies



Personally I believe the 'undocumented' should move to Galway , Eire. I understand the people there are very accepting of the shenanigans by these wayward undocumented folks.
You prove yourself to be damn bloody ignorant, but hey maybe you can't help it:up:
Apparently they have folks in that town who are self proclaimed experts on everything.
Hey bubba maybe learn your own laws before commenting on others...though you might get a bit stuck.

[tater]

I've said all along that States were allowed to pass a law like the new AZ law, and that they should. You claimed the authority was delegated to the States, which is untrue. Allowed is not delegated. Delegated is a requirement for the States, it is not a requirement. The AZ law is a big deal because most states have no explicit immigration enforcement at all, they let the feds do it (or not do it, sadly).

They should pass such a law, because if the State does not, then municipalities will pass contrary laws that explicitly disallow asking immigration status—there is no federal requirement for any law enforcement to enforce immigration law as it is NOT delegated at all.

What happens is that the more liberal (democrat controlled) urban areas pass these laws. In the West, that means a tiny fraction of the area of the State that has a large population. So you get a huge illegal problem to fuel the sanctuary city in the State as a whole simply because they managed to elect a democrat mayor and city council. States usually swap back and forth between parties in the west for elections like this. NM is firmly democrat for the state house, but the governor is about 50/50 dem or republican.

[Tribesman]

Polls have shown that nearly 60% of the pepole in arizona approve of the law.
Didn't I say that populist crap is popular but don't really mean anything.:doh:
given a sample ofstupidity how many believe inn cretinism and that noah took two animals like in scripture and song

Since all my arguements against thipslegislation have revolved around the effectiveness, the legal;iy of the enforcement(which the State has not even approached yet appart from saying it probably cannot stand legaly inits current form)

Polls have shown that nearly 60% of the pepole in arizona approve of the law. Yea I know you dident hear about that maybe you need to tune your tin foil hat a little.
Provide a poll , given that people in arizona are on Fox news complaining that they have fallen foul of this law thast ain't even law yet you may hasve some trouble.


Yeah I know that somehow Rupertis part of this global conspiracy . So when you get all his reportage in the papers which conspirationaly ain't in the papers

[Onkel Neal]

where they say someone is wrong but posts a piece fthat shows they were right and yet stillcontiues in thier wingnut idoelogyto present crap that is wrong.
.


Do not make a bad post report and include bad language.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well I guess that is that....

[tater]

To clarify:

I said that the local governments in question were not allowed to ask immigration status. This was true in parts of Arizona—the parts where the vast majority of people actually live (the 2 big cities). Local means municipalities. Other States have a statewide policy not to do this, and again, the only way to stop this would be a statewide law.

Phoenix and Tucson both had sanctuary laws. As I said, a state law was principally to override the ability of localities to set policy to not ever ask.

[August]

To clarify:

I said that the local governments in question were not allowed to ask immigration status. This was true in parts of Arizona—the parts where the vast majority of people actually live (the 2 big cities). Local means municipalities. Other States have a statewide policy not to do this, and again, the only way to stop this would be a statewide law.

Phoenix and Tucson both had sanctuary laws. As I said, a state law was principally to override the ability of localities to set policy to not ever ask.

Most of us got what you were saying two pages ago tater. I must say that you have way more patience dealing with Trolls than I do.