Analysis of Arizona Immigration Bill

[angelatc]

I've lived in the deep south for 32 years, and have NEVER seen hatred such as this. Except maybe the time when I saw the burning cross flaming away in my black neighbors yard once.

 

[MelissaWV]

Scapegoats? The people are here illegally! They aren't scapegoats - they're criminals.

Again, every time they start fining employers, the big employers lobby for a maximum fine. Say, $10,000 per occurrence, maximum $100,000. So Tyson chooses to risk the $50,000 because they'll save more than than in a month. That means that Jane the Farmer either has to lower her wages and hire a slave, or go out of business.

Tyson doesn't like the competition, so they call and complain about Jane. Her $30,000 fine puts her out of business.

This isn't fiction - this actually happens.

And what those upset about forged drivers licenses do about the small business owners who will inevitably be duped by the lowlifes carrying the fake IDs? Are they supposed to become experts in identifying forgeries, since e-verify is a taboo in that same crowd?

Screw that. You break the law, you pay the price. Hold yourself responsible for your own actions.

IDs aren't a very good means of demonstrating citizenship. Birth certificate, immigration documents, or some sort of verifiable adoption/social services documentation (all three of those could be checked with the issuing agencies). I've already talked about how this is done for professional licensures.

This would even the playing field, it'd be one phonecall away, and it wouldn't require another layer of data entry, confidentiality, error, and expense. If you found out about identity theft (what?!? that's NOT me!) during this process, as a lot of us do when they run a credit check, you have time to do something about it. If you find out at a stop that you're flagged as a criminal, though, I pity you the very long night you're going to have.

And again I agree... break the law, pay the price. Maybe you are correct and Arizona's nowhere near dumb enough to push their luck with this clause. It certainly seems counter-productive.

I don't like e-verify for pretty personal reasons, as I've had problems all my life with getting all my identification to read properly. Hell, what's on my license isn't even my legal name (I gave up). It turns out some agencies don't use hyphens, some don't use Cyrillic characters, some don't carry foreign letters, and so on. Each layer added to the process makes it more of a game of Telephone. I have gotten so many documents with "Mellisa" as my LAST name... I'm not remotely sure how you can even DO that. *grumbletangent*

Anyway, yeah, I personally don't like e-verify, we agree criminals should get punished, and so on and so forth

 

[angelatc]

lol wow. You just said earlier that Uneducated people were flooding the boarders, however these uneducated people are 'stealing' the jobs from our 'educated black people'??? Comeon.

LOL indeed.

 

[MelissaWV]

Why can't we be friends?!?

Update: The rat was deported. (The frog was merely arrested).

 

[John Taylor]

Why can't we be friends?!?

Update: The rat was deported. (The frog was merely arrested).

Racist. Why was it the frog? Because it can swim?

 

[MelissaWV]

Racist. Why was it the frog? Because it can swim?

Yeah I messed up originally. I meant the rat was deported (it's being helped across the body of water) and the frog was arrested for helping.

The thread needed two seconds of levity before it caused heads to explode.

Okay, carry on with the angry-time!

 

[angelatc]

I agree. I hope Angela is not advocating social engineering, because that's what liberals espouse.

Social engineering? Getting people off welfare is social engineering?

 

[bruce leeroy]

one thing people seem to forget is that mexicans/hispanics DONT LOOK ONE CERTIAN WAY RACIALLY..........you have some white mexicans that are indistinguishable from anglos, some black mexicans, and all kinds of shades in between.............."race" would not be a very effective profiling tool to catch illegal mexicans, much less all illegals

 

[MelissaWV]

one thing people seem to forget is that mexicans/hispanics DONT LOOK ONE CERTIAN WAY RACIALLY..........you have some white mexicans that are indistinguishable from anglos, some black mexicans, and all kinds of shades in between.............."race" would not be a very effective profiling tool to catch illegal mexicans, much less all illegals

I agree. We gotta be sneaky about it. Like if people are speaking Spanish, or they're standing in a parking lot, or they're at a bus stop, or picking vegetables, or bussing tables.

 

[John Taylor]

I agree. We gotta be sneaky about it. Like if people are speaking Spanish, or they're standing in a parking lot, or they're at a bus stop, or picking vegetables, or bussing tables.

Only 59% of illegals are Mexicans in their origins anyway. 41% can't be IDd through the use of unconstitutional profiling anyway...

This law doesn't profile, it removes illegals, whatever their color or creed.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

First Terry was never about failure to ID and is only relevant because SCOTUS made a statement about ID compulsion. Hibel was only about failure to ID. Hibel referred to the standard in Terry and stated why it was not applicable. SCOTUS stated Nevada law required Hibel to provide a name based on the circumstances.

It amazes me you would even refer to Terry for ID compulsion because the section you cite has no applicability to the issue of ID. That is explicitly contained in the relevant section of the ruling I cited.

Fortunately for me, a third grader can read your citation and my citation and concisely determine where the truth lies.

I would not expect many people rallying to your cause of ID compulsion.

This is utter nonsense, everyone SHOULD read the entire opinion for themselves, and not rely on the word of an advocate for the destruction of freedom of association and private property rights.



Our first task is to establish at what point in this encounter the Fourth Amendment becomes relevant. That is, we must decide whether and when Officer McFadden "seized" Terry, and whether and when he conducted a "search." There is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution. [n12] We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure [p17] performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." [n13] It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. [n14]

The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search," is twofold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And, by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. [n15] This Court has held, in [p18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. [p19] United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356-358 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 586-587 (1948). The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); see, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367-368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30-31 (1925).

The distinctions of classical "stop-and-frisk" theory thus serve to divert attention from the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment -- the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.

Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest. When that point has been reached, petitioner would concede the officer's right to conduct a search of the suspect for weapons, fruits or instrumentalities of the crime, or "mere" evidence, incident to the arrest.

There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning, however. First, it fails to take account of traditional limitations upon the scope of searches, and thus recognizes no distinction in purpose, character, and extent between a search incident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons. The former, although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964), is also justified on other grounds, ibid., and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to [p26] arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). Thus, it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a "full" search, even though it remains a serious intrusion.

A second, and related, objection to petitioner's argument is that it assumes that the law of arrest has already worked out the balance between the particular interests involved here -- the neutralization of danger to the policeman in the investigative circumstance and the sanctity of the individual. But this is not so. An arrest is a wholly different kind of intrusion upon individual freedom from a limited search for weapons, and the interests each is designed to serve are likewise quite different. An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. [n22] The protective search for weapons, on the other hand, constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion upon the sanctity of the person. It does not follow that, because an officer may lawfully arrest a person only when he is apprised of facts sufficient to warrant a belief that the person has committed or is committing a crime, the officer is equally unjustified, absent that kind of evidence, in making any intrusions short of an arrest. Moreover, a perfectly reasonable apprehension of danger may arise long before the officer is possessed of adequate information to justify taking a person into custody for [p27] the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Petitioner's reliance on cases which have worked out standards of reasonableness with regard to "seizures" constituting arrests and searches incident thereto is thus misplaced. It assumes that the interests sought to be vindicated and the invasions of personal security may be equated in the two cases, and thereby ignores a vital aspect of the analysis of the reasonableness of particular types of conduct under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal Court, supra.

 

[tropicangela]

If something goes wrong with the law, they can change it. But something has to be done, and I think this is a good place to start.

angelatc, I have agreed with just about everything you've posted over the past few years... but this statement quoted above is exactly what I heard people say after they just passed *healthcare reform.* Many on these forums would agree that once a law is passed, it rarely changes, no?

 

[low preference guy]

angelatc saying "something has to be done" sounds like the people voting for the bailout. They also said "something has to be done".

 

[angelatc]

But business would be less productive. There wouldn't be maximum utilization of resources and proper allocation of capital as harsh immigration restrictions would distort labor markets.

Ok, you actually saying that black people are so unproductive we're better off leaving them on welfare. Not sure I can respond to that, especially in the context in that I thought we all agreed that the welfare state should be abolished.

If what you just said is true, what would you do with all the inefficent black people that apparently nobody will ever hire?

Let them starve?

 

[angelatc]

angelatc, I have agreed with just about everything you've posted over the past few years... but this statement quoted above is exactly what I heard people say after they just passed *healthcare reform.* Many on these forums would agree that once a law is passed, it rarely changes, no?

Well, we've seen the effects of not doing anything. It didn't work out like the open borders people claim it would, that's for sure. Wages are down, welfare and crime are up.

There's nothing new in this law - these are the same powers that the Feds have had for years, even if they're not using them.

If we tightened up on immigration, unemployment would fall and wages would rise. Those conditions are absolutely essential if we're to have any hope at all of abolishing the welfare state.

I'd prefer to see all 50 states develop their own illegal-immigration policies, because (as with health care) 50 experiments are better than one.

 

[angelatc]

angelatc saying "something has to be done" sounds like the people voting for the bailout. They also said "something has to be done".

No, they said "Something has to be done RIGHT NOW!"

Also, they didn't allow anybody to read the bill before they voted on it. This situation has been developing for 20 years - the "do nothing" approach has had negative implications for the citizens of Arizona.

The bill went through the legislature, and was subject to the standard debate.

When a government's plan isn't working, it is the responsibility of the people to change it. 70% of the people in Arizona support this, whereas about 10% of the people of the USA supported the bailout.

 

[tropicangela]

Well, we've seen the effects of not doing anything. It didn't work out like the open borders people claim it would, that's for sure. Wages are down, welfare and crime are up.

There's nothing new in this law - these are the same powers that the Feds have had for years, even if they're not using them.

If we tightened up on immigration, unemployment would fall and wages would rise. Those conditions are absolutely essential if we're to have any hope at all of abolishing the welfare state.

I'd prefer to see all 50 states develop their own illegal-immigration policies, because (as with health care) 50 experiments is better than one.

Doesn't Ron Paul explain that if we End the Fed and get the economy under control with real free markets that the immigrants taking our jobs would be a non-issue?

Are people here arguing that the federal law is unconstitutional as well?

 

[bruce leeroy]

I agree. We gotta be sneaky about it. Like if people are speaking Spanish, or they're standing in a parking lot, or they're at a bus stop, or picking vegetables, or bussing tables.

you forgot about working in brick masonary, drinking bud light, driving pickups with their last names stenciled on the back winshield in olde english letters or watching calliente LOL
but seriously, I have reservations about this or any other law that gives law enforcement agencies wider latitude than the already too wide latitude they have today, but lets not get ahead of ourselves, its not like every julio in a low rider or every pedro with a big belt buckle watching a sergio martinez or chris arreola fight in the sports bar is going to get profiled.........Im sure the Law enforcement doesnt want lawsuits so this wont be pursued recklessly

 

[MelissaWV]

you forgot about working in brick masonary, drinking bud light, driving pickups with their last names stenciled on the back winshield in olde english letters or watching calliente LOL
but seriously, I have reservations about this or any other law that gives law enforcement agencies wider latitude than the already too wide latitude they have today, but lets not get ahead of ourselves, its not like every julio in a low rider or every pedro with a big belt buckle watching a sergio martinez or chris arreola fight in the sports bar is going to get profiled.........Im sure the Law enforcement doesnt want lawsuits so this wont be pursued recklessly

No, that's profiling for heterosexuality...

Calle Ciega / Performing at "Caliente"

(Watch on mute)

 

[The Patriot]

Ok, you actually saying that black people are so unproductive we're better off leaving them on welfare. Not sure I can respond to that, especially in the context in that I thought we all agreed that the welfare state should be abolished.

If what you just said is true, what would you do with all the inefficent black people that apparently nobody will ever hire?

Let them starve?

I am saying the most productive person should get the job, don't see what is wrong with that. So yes, what I am saying is, better workers should get jobs over worse workers, in simple terms. And at the very least it should be up to the discretion of the employer. If a guy wants to go out of business by offering high wages and producing less, he ought to be in the business of running a charity and not running a business cause he will go out of business. I don't think government policy should be focused on inhibiting economic growth, which is what you seem to be advocating by restricting the labor supply. Look, you are going to appeal to my senses by advocating this black power nonsense like some corrupt socialist civil rights pimp. They can work harder, it isn't impossible.

I am saying get rid of welfare and end the burdensome tax and regulatory system which inhibits growth. Will this employ every person? Hell no. I never said full employment should be the goal or is even possible, this is where charities and voluntary contributions come in if individuals or groups so wish to help those in need.