Reply With Quote
what does that have to do with the rest of us ?
FAIR, I support this arizona legislation
stupid of you to lump everyone in one boat as if they ALL want "separatist" lives.
of course, coming from you nbadan, no surprise.
Noah Wyle needs to go over losing on The Amazing Race.
what does that have to do with the rest of us ?
FAIR, I support this arizona legislation
stupid of you to lump everyone in one boat as if they ALL want "separatist" lives.
of course, coming from you nbadan, no surprise.
You s let ST in on how to keep illegals out. There are 15 million of them. Make some suggestions.
What I feel is the best method has already been proposed:
1) Beef up border security
2) Punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants/incentivize (sp?) hiring legal employees
The first is obvious. The second is a non-intrusive way to reduce the motivation to work here. Pretty simple.
Both very obvious. The problem is actually doing it.
Arizona is giving the police authority to actually do something about the 15 million (Crazy high number) illegals her already and the minority of peeps don't like it. God forbid a police officer ask for ID. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
you're such an idiot
You're the ing idiot.
If every authority figure used their authority without abusing it, then conservatives wouldn't have a problem with the government, would they?
Can you not imagine situations where police might use their power improperly? Are you comfortable with a country in which policemen can ask for one's citizenship, with no rigorously defined laws establishing limits on that power?
Just because it's easy to provide proof of citizenship doesn't mean it should be necessary. Why should I have to prove who I am, unless there is an important legal reason why?
It's the same thought-process that leads to people wanting things like the Real ID, or any other number of steps towards more draconian measures.
Also, is it a surprise that border reform hasn't been established? Many companies use illegal workers; I'm sure on both sides of the aisle. If you want to change it, you can feel free to write your representatives, protest, etc etc.
asking jackie to think outside the box may cause his head to explode..
LnGrrR's opinion is not thinking outside the box. You really hate yourself.
Don't be afraid of the police over using their power. They work for us to keep us safe. You will always have a few bad nuts but overall the police do a great job.If every authority figure used their authority without abusing it, then conservatives wouldn't have a problem with the government, would they?
Can you not imagine situations where police might use their power improperly? Are you comfortable with a country in which policemen can ask for one's citizenship, with no rigorously defined laws establishing limits on that power?
Just because it's easy to provide proof of citizenship doesn't mean it should be necessary. Why should I have to prove who I am, unless there is an important legal reason why?
It's the same thought-process that leads to people wanting things like the Real ID, or any other number of steps towards more draconian measures.
It's very easy to ask for ID and we should. Their are 15 million illegals in our country. That speaks for itself. 15 MILLION people who are breaking our laws. We have to send them home. Asking for ID is a start.
Punishing the businesses and stronger borders are no brainers, IMHO. Alot of people have been wanting this for years. We will eventually do that. I also can imagine the crying that will go around when they pass laws to do that. You think asking for id is a big deal. Wait for businesses to lose money. Wait until people get hurt or even killed trying to enter the country on a daily basis.
15 million illegals. That's a problem for any country.
Wow. I don't think you know the extent of our "illegal" issue. Especially in border states, where Federal law guarantees certain amnesties for illegals but ends up costing almost entirely state $$.
There's absolutely reasoning to do this - but is it cons utional?
And our politicians are working for us to keep us happy. Does this mean they're above reproach?Don't be afraid of the police over using their power. They work for us to keep us safe. You will always have a few bad nuts but overall the police do a great job.
I agree that overall the police do a great job. This is why I'm in favor of laws which, at the least, CLEARLY define when and where it may be legal to ask for ID. This law doesn't do so, in my opinion.
I favor being as strict as possible, because then abuse of power can only do so much. Isn't that the same view most conservatives have of federal government?
I understand the issue; I differ on the means to fix it. As well, the "Check ID plan" will have serious political ramifications, and if the Republicans can't recognize that they're stupid. Already they've backtracked on the language of the bill... we'll really see how much damage has been caused with the Latino vote this cycle. I'm guessing it sways moderately to heavily towards Democrats, even though most Latinos are socially conservative.
Wow. I don't think you know the extent of our "illegal" issue. Especially in border states, where Federal law guarantees certain amnesties for illegals but ends up costing almost entirely state $$.
As such, non-confrontational ways of weeding out illegal immigrants will gain much more traction, I feel.
What 'non-confrontational' ways do you specifically reference?
From Page 1 of the law:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SU ION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Well, maybe "non-confrontational' isn't quite the right word. Less intrusive, perhaps.
Ok... what exactly does "lawful contact" mean, is what I'm getting at.B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT
It doesn't seem to be well-defined, since they're already changing it to "lawful arrest, stop or detention", but even that isn't clear enough. What is a "lawful stop"?
I mean, if you're jaywalking, can a policeman ask to see your papers? How about if you're driving 5 over the speed limit?
Let's put it this way... the 4th Amendment limits the police from "unreasonable" search and seizure, correct?
The courts have defined "unreasonable" to mean that officers can't just stop you for a minor traffic violation and then ransack your car looking for illegal items.
The same goes for your home... let's say, for instance, that you build something on the side of your home that violates state law in some way, through some regulation. That doesn't give them the right to then go through your house looking for drugs.
I would like it spelled out clearly, under what sort of categories a police could REASONABLY assume a person was an illegal immigrant, as well as what is considered a lawful stop/contact. At the least.
Did some more research, and I think this blog spells it out well:
http://radioviceonline.com/lawful-co...igration-bill/
In the example given, there is a REASONABLE su ion that someone may be an illegal immigrant. I wouldn't have a problem if the law is applied this way.My post from April 26 provided the links to the legislation and the summary. The bill uses normal statuary language and references lawful contact. I’m not a lawyer, but it’s my understanding those words are in reference to the normal lawful duties of law enforcement officers. These may include, but are not limited to, traffic stops with probable cause (speeding, broken tail-light, expired tags…), domestic dispute calls, drug investigations, and checking on su ious activity … including running north through the desert just north of the border with backpacks in the middle of the night.
To make it even more clear, a lawful contact is one that is authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. Picking out a person from a crowd and asking for their ID because they “look brown” is not authorized or sanctioned, and is forbidden by law.
Again, the legal definition of "reasonable" is different from the common usage of the term.
In other words whenever a cop approaches you.
I really don't know what world lngrrr is from. Cops pull people over and ransack their cars looking for drugs all the ing time - it's happened to me over leaving my brights on. Entire interwoven - and legal - plots to seize money and possessions without an intention on returning them occur when one owns enough and doesn't work the political landscape to the local likings.
...and is doing so for a lawful reason, after which you've given him probable cause.
He can't stop you, on your way to get ice cream with the family, and ask you to prove you're in the country legally.
Yoni even you have you acknowledge that cops approach people all of the itme without a crime being committed. hence 'lawful contact' is occuring. In the end it will be a cops word against an illegal when this happens. We all know that the cop will get the benefit of the time 99% of the time so they can do whatever they want.. right or wrong this is how it works
So? If, during a lawful contact (however, you want to define it), a peace officer discovers -- upon reasonable su ion -- a crime and enforces the relevant law, what's the problem?
Do NOT Read This Supreme Court Decision...
In a later post Professor Jacobsen elaborates even further...... if you want to be able to continue using terms like Nazi, Communist and Apartheid to describe the new Arizona immigration law. Or if, like President Obama, you want to claim that the law would allow people to be questioned merely for going out for ice cream. Because none of these accusations have a basis in reality.
Some quick research, available to all the people screaming about the Arizona law, reveals that the U.S. Supreme Court has reviewed the issue of questioning potential illegal aliens regarding citizenship or immigration status, and has found such questioning permissible provided that the "characteristic appearance" of the person was not the sole factor giving rise to a "reasonable su ion" that the person might be here illegally.
In U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the Supreme Court unanimously (with various concurring opinions) held that "roving patrols" by the U.S. border patrol (which by regulation had to be within 100 miles of the border) could not stop vehicles and question the occupants as to immigration status based solely on the occupants appearing to be Mexican. (I assume this case is why the Arizona statute forbids using race, color or national origin as the sole factor.)
Rather, the Supreme Court held there had to be other articulable factors which formed a reasonable su ion under a "totality of the cir stances" test.
The Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of some possible factors which could contribute to the formation of a reasonable su ion, including characteristic appearance (emphasis mine):
Just a year later, the Supreme Court held that no reasonable su ion was needed to engage in limited questioning of citizenship or immigration status at fixed checkpoints (unlike the roving patrols). U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). Take a look also at this Congressional Research Service memo discussing the reasonable su ion (to stop someone and ask questions) and probable cause (to conduct a search) standards, to get an idea of how the courts have struggled with these concepts.
There have been attempts to distinguish these cases, for example, where the questioning was done far away from the border area, or by state police not federal border patrol agents, and so on. And there may be other challenges to the Arizona law unrelated to the stopping and questioning. That's fine. That's why we have courts, to decide such matters.
Just don't claim that the Arizona legislature has done something government was not already empowered to do, or invented some new standard called "reasonable su ion," or by failing to exclude "characteristic appearance" from being taken into consideration engaged in a clear cons utional violation.
In many ways, we have been there and done that judicially when it comes to the standards for questioning people as to their citizenship or immigration status.
The issue really is whether we want to push right up to these legal limits, or do we want to stop short out of political, philosophical or other concerns. There also are issues as to whether the policy will be effective, and other aspects of the law which may be challenged.
Regardless, the notion that the Arizona immigration law allows the police to question someone's immigration status just because the person "looks Mexican," or is "driving while Brown," or has a particular accent, has no basis in the Arizona statute or the clear history of the law in this area.
So if we were not Nazis and Communists and Apartheidists the day before the Arizona Governor signed the immigration law, we did not become any of those things the day after.
Update: Desmond Tutu picks up on Obama's theme, and wrongly claims that looking or sounding Hispanic is a ground for questioning:
Glenn Reynolds posts an e-mail from a federal immigration agent who argues that border security is not enough. If and when the courts deal with the Arizona statute, I expect the State of Arizona to argue that the illegal immigration situation has become so bad that the entire state now serves as the equivalent of the 100 mile border area discussed in the Brignoni-Ponce case.I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the grocery store and forgetting to bring her passport and immigration do ents with her. I cannot be dispassionate about the fact that the very act of her being in the grocery store will soon be a crime in the state she lives in. Or that, should a policeman hear her accent and form a "reasonable su ion" that she is an illegal immigrant, she can -- and will -- be taken into custody until someone sorts it out, while her children are at home waiting for their dinner.
Update No. 2: The Arizona legislature is in the process of amending the law to clarify certain terms, which should insulate the legislation from some of the anticipated challenges:
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
Saturday Night Card Game (When The Race Card Met Godwin)
There's more in the post so, please, read it. However, with this last point, I must take exception.This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:
It has been eight days since the Governor of Arizona signed the immigration law. A few tweaks have been made in the wording of the law since then, but the essence of the law remains the same:
A law which was not extraordinary, except to the extent that it signaled an intention to take the immigration laws seriously, was met with a crescendo of accusations of racism and Nazism (with a dash of communism and Apartheidism thrown in to e things up a bit).Illegal immigration is illegal and will be treated as illegal, and the laws setting forth that illegality will be implemented in accordance with longstanding practices for determining citizenship and immigration status based on a cons utionally acceptable "reasonable su ion" test.
It really is hard to remember any event which has caused this level of vitriol, hyperbole and outright fabrication.
You can pretty much pick any policy decision made by President George W. Bush and find this level of vitriol, byperbole, and outright fabrication by the Left.
"policy decision made by President George W. Bush"
Repugs don't do policy,
they don't govern,
they intentionally mis-govern,
they do All Politics All The Time.
If you're driving, you need your ID. We have to carry "papers" for a variety of tasks. It's already in lay that non-citizens are required to carry their "papers" showing they are permitted to be here. It's been the law for decades already.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
