Analysis of Arizona Immigration Bill

[John Taylor]

dannno is a midget? That's adorable!

I didn't really like him until just now.

Trying to determine whether or not someone is here legally solely based on suspicion of the crime of being here illegally would be a dangerous precident, as angela has already pointed out, and as AZ is not likely to do... but "not likely" doesn't mean a whole lot, and no one's cleared up what a "potential illegal" really looks like, except to point out they engage in legal activities like standing and waiting at bus stops and picking produce. That is the objection. You should not have to engage in an implied contract with the police that you are guilty until you prove innocent, if he suspects you of being guilty. Employment, flying on planes, driving a vehicle, getting benefits, and so on are agreements one enters into, and at which time one should provide verifiable proof of eligibility.

The trouble is that you are requiring people prove eligibility to engage in a perfectly legal activity, in this case, unless the store in question calls the police on those people loitering outside (which I strongly encourage, but I doubt they will do).

The AZ law does not enable law enforcement to stop people solely for suspicion of illegality.

What we're talking about is some 12 million people who have already broken the law, and who continue to flagrantly break the law.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

In the United States? I'm not Rip Van Winkle, we have a system of Zwangswirtschaft, the state direction and control of the means of production while allowing the retention of a veneer of private ownership of title to remain.

That's what we have, and it's more akin to the fascism carried over in Germany under the Weimar Republic and Hitlerean Germany than to laissez faire.

What do you think we have?

We have Corporatism not capitalism. Which is socialized state run capitalism/fascism. So we do agree on that. However Laissez Faire will never be achievable with closed boarders. Closing the boarders will only prolong the state screwing with the markets, furthering us into debt. Its funny you should bring up Germany also, as they did the same thing as you are supporting with AZ. Its national socialism, pure and simple. Are we going to start gassing brown people next?

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

dannno is a midget? That's adorable!

I didn't really like him until just now.

Dannno is adorable! Especially with those big eyes and all of his kitties!

 

[MelissaWV]

The AZ law does not enable law enforcement to stop people solely for suspicion of illegality.

What we're talking about is some 12 million people who have already broken the law, and who continue to flagrantly break the law.

It allows someone to be questioned if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a removable offense. Being here illegally is a removable offense. It allows someone to be questioned if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

Additionally, the "acceptable" forms of identification are a joke, and what's most likely to happen is that trafficking in Arizona license "re-assignment" theft (someone's real, valid license being recreated with the illegal's information) will go up, and when the license is run, if that illegal has previously been caught and your identity has been flagged as such, you're pretty much screwed.

I'm sure that sounds entirely far-fetched, but the entire bill does not address forgeries other than to mention e-verify, which I suppose should be sufficient to check all forms of identification (even out of state; earlier I posted that some other states do issue licenses to illegals). I don't really trust it, having had really awful experiences with pretty much every agency imaginable screwing up my name.

Arizona was tops in the nation for identity theft last time I checked (though numbers wobble).

 

[angelatc]

Its funny you should bring up Germany also, as they did the same thing as you are supporting with AZ. Its national socialism, pure and simple. Are we going to start gassing brown people next?

It's been proven that the jobs the illegal immigrants hold are jobs that the black community would have if illegal immigration was curbed. Why do you hate black people?

 

[angelatc]

It allows someone to be questioned if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a removable offense. Being here illegally is a removable offense. It allows someone to be questioned if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

Additionally, the "acceptable" forms of identification are a joke, and what's most likely to happen is that trafficking in Arizona license "re-assignment" theft (someone's real, valid license being recreated with the illegal's information) will go up, and when the license is run, if that illegal has previously been caught and your identity has been flagged as such, you're pretty much screwed.

I'm sure that sounds entirely far-fetched, but the entire bill does not address forgeries other than to mention e-verify, which I suppose should be sufficient to check all forms of identification (even out of state; earlier I posted that some other states do issue licenses to illegals). I don't really trust it, having had really awful experiences with pretty much every agency imaginable screwing up my name.

Arizona was tops in the nation for identity theft last time I checked (though numbers wobble).

So, there's really no point in ever having any laws, because certain people will always just break them anyway.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

It's been proven that the jobs the illegal immigrants hold are jobs that the black community would have if illegal immigration was curbed. Why do you hate black people?

Thats the dumbest thing Ive heard all day. Why do "blacks" have to take the "lower end jobs"? You think black people aren't intelligent or good enough to work the job of a "white man"?? See how that can work?

 

[John Taylor]

We have Corporatism not capitalism. Which is socialized state run capitalism/fascism. So we do agree on that. However Laissez Faire will never be achievable with closed boarders. Closing the boarders will only prolong the state screwing with the markets, furthering us into debt. Its funny you should bring up Germany also, as they did the same thing as you are supporting with AZ. Its national socialism, pure and simple. Are we going to start gassing brown people next?

How many people should be allowed into the United States? I'm sure over a billion people would love to come... but if we didn't have border controls and immigration policy restricting the flow, wouldn't we cease to be "America" anymore? Couldn't we then just become another latin American, or Chinese American banana republic or corporatist dictatorship (respectively)??? If we were rid of the birthright citizenship, this wouldn't be a problem, but until we get rid of birthright citizenship, the loosest immigration policy in the world, we must control our borders and remove the millions of people here breaking the law.

Wishing to preserve that which is best of the American society and culture does not rend one a racist. I couldn't care less if it were twenty million Dutchmen moving here illegally.

If one cannot ask for documentation, how can any police officer know who their suspects are, what they are wanted for in other jurisdictions, or whether they are here illegally?

 

[dannno]

The AZ law does not enable law enforcement to stop people solely for suspicion of illegality.

Yes it does, we debunked that earlier.

I was laying off the fourth amendment arguments until melissa posted text straight from the bill that put me back onto those arguments.

 

[John Taylor]

Thats the dumbest thing Ive heard all day. Why do "blacks" have to take the "lower end jobs"? You think black people aren't intelligent or good enough to work the job of a "white man"?? See how that can work?

It's not racist to note that of unskilled laborers, African Americans make up a dispurportionate percentage.

This doesn't reflect ability or intellectual capacity, but may indicate rather social structure, economic opportunities, educational status, or a myriad of other factors.

 

[John Taylor]

Yes it does, we debunked that earlier.

I was laying off the fourth amendment arguments until melissa posted text straight from the bill that put me back onto those arguments.

No it doesn't. I posted the AZ law, and the accompanying sections of the US code which debunked your claim.

 

[angelatc]

Thats the dumbest thing Ive heard all day. Why do "blacks" have to take the "lower end jobs"? You think black people aren't intelligent or good enough to work the job of a "white man"?? See how that can work?

I was just trying to point out that stupid is as stupid does. You've decided that enforcing immigration law is akin to gassing the Jews.

Almost everybody in America starts out in the lower end jobs, by the way. Blacks just have a tougher time getting their foot in that door. Illegal immigration has been a huge factor in that for the past 20 years.

 

[AuH20]

Yes it does, we debunked that earlier.

I was laying off the fourth amendment arguments until melissa posted text straight from the bill that put me back onto those arguments.

Do you realize the potential mulititude of civil suits if that's the case? I find it hard to believe that the author of the bill could be that shortsighted. Someone repost the PDF of the bill.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

It's not racist to note that of unskilled laborers, African Americans make up a dispurportionate percentage.

This doesn't reflect ability or intellectual capacity, but may indicate rather social structure, economic opportunities, educational status, or a myriad of other factors.

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.

 

[The Patriot]

It's been proven that the jobs the illegal immigrants hold are jobs that the black community would have if illegal immigration was curbed. Why do you hate black people?

Why do you hate Latinos? Or better yet, why do you view it through a racial lenses? Does their black skin entitle them to a job? If a person is more productive and works for less money, than it is only logical that the business owner will offer the job to the worker who produces more and consumes less resources.

Black unemployment lies solely on the backs of black people. I will give you an example. My friend's father ran a construction company beginning in the 60s. He hired blacks, not a racist bone in the guy's body. But he recognized the blacks on a whole were far less productive and always complained about not getting a "fair wage". As an American, and a patriot, he felt inclined to hire them as they were his country men. But as Latino immigration into California increased in the 1980s, he was losing money to competitors who hired Latino labor, and had to let the blacks go, and started hiring legal latino immigrants.

 

[ssforronpaul]

ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MEMO (legal opinion)

Subsection B allows a law enforcement entity, where reasonable suspicion exists, to presumably detain a suspected illegal alien for the purpose of determining immigration status. This is simply a restatement of the federal law already in place. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979); see also Ramirez v. Webb, 719 F.Supp. 610, 616 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (holding that law enforcement authorities "may detain an individual for a brief period of interrogation here the circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in illegal activity. In this case, the relevant illegal activity is that the individual is illegally present in this country."). There is nothing in this subsection that would permit a law enforcement entity to go beyond this allowance and indefinitely detain someone.

Subsection 6 (previously E) provides that a law enforcement officer "may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." Again, as with subsection B, this is simply a restatement of the established constitutional protections and does not go so far as to permit indefinite detention. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (holding that "f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.").

ssforronpaul

 

[angelatc]

It's not racist to note that of unskilled laborers, African Americans make up a dispurportionate percentage.

This doesn't reflect ability or intellectual capacity, but may indicate rather social structure, economic opportunities, educational status, or a myriad of other factors.

That's exactly what it is. During the last labor shortage, when fast food restaurants were paying $1000 signing bonuses to employees who agreed to stay for 6 months, the UPS hub in Indy started aggressively recruiting workers from the worst neighborhoods in the city. They even set up shuttle buses to get people to and from work. Crime and welfare rates were falling like rocks, and I suspect that if it had been allowed to continue, the black population of the entire country would have seen their per capita incomes rise at record levels.

Instead, our government gave corporate America the gift that keeps on taking - unfettered illegal immigration.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I have worked with the law as well, and am intimately familiar with federal and state law concerning the 4th amendment, unlike you, who has watched some "sovereignty" expert preach on how to write legal briefs and evade jailtime for driving with a card-board license plate.

I am yet to be impressed with your familiarity and lack of citations whenever you discuss flawed positions. Not to mention the complete lack of knowledge you exhibited regarding the adoption of any standardized jury instructions. And the lack of knowledge you have exhibited regarding state vs. federal jurisdiction. The fact I have to cite this to someone who make claims of intimate knowledge in law is ridiculous

It was clearly established in:

U.S. Supreme Court
TERRY v. OHIO.

Also, although the Court puts the matter aside in the context of this case, I think an additional word is in order concerning the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop. There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.

And clearly elaborated in:

U.S. Supreme Court
LARRY D. HIIBEL, PETITIONER v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.]

Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself in the course of a Terry stop, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer. See Brown, 443 U.S., at 53, n. 3. Petitioner draws our attention to statements in prior opinions that, according to him, answer the question in his favor. In Terry, Justice White stated in a concurring opinion that a person detained in an investigative stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.” 392 U.S., at 34. The Court cited this opinion in dicta in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984), a decision holding that a routine traffic stop is not a custodial stop requiring the protections of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In the course of explaining why Terry stops have not been subject to Miranda, the Court suggested reasons why Terry stops have a “nonthreatening character,” among them the fact that a suspect detained during a Terry stop “is not obliged to respond” to questions. See Berkemer, supra, at 439, 440. According to petitioner, these statements establish a right to refuse to answer questions during a Terry stop.

We do not read these statements as controlling. The passages recognize that the Fourth Amendment does not impose obligations on the citizen but instead provides rights against the government. As a result, the Fourth Amendment itself cannot require a suspect to answer questions. This case concerns a different issue, however. Here, the source of the legal obligation arises from Nevada state law, not the Fourth Amendment. Further, the statutory obligation does not go beyond answering an officer’s request to disclose a name. See NRS §171.123(3) (“Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer”). As a result, we cannot view the dicta in Berkemer or Justice White’s concurrence in Terry as answering the question whether a State can compel a suspect to disclose his name during a Terry stop.

That means absent of applicable lawful state statues for the circumstances, Terry applies.

I could back it up with a chain of rulings that are cited in these rulings such as these:

U.S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.

Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct

U.S. Supreme Court
PAPACHRISTOU v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)

This ordinance is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 , and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 ; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 .

Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is that "[all persons] are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 .

U.S. Supreme Court
KOLENDER, CHIEF OF POLICE OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL. v. LAWSON

This appeal presents a facial challenge to a criminal statute that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968).[1] We conclude that the statute as it has been construed is unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated 354 by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification.

U.S. Supreme Court
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE ET AL v. DELGADO ET AL.

In the course of enforcing the immigration laws, petitioner Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enters employers' worksites to determine whether any illegal aliens 212 may be present as employees. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the "factory surveys" involved in this case amounted to a seizure of the entire work forces, and further held that the INS could not question individual employees during any of these surveys unless its agents had a reasonable suspicion that the employee to be questioned was an illegal alien. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. Sureck, 681 F. 2d 624 (1982). We conclude that these factory surveys did not result in the seizure of the entire work forces, and that the individual questioning of the respondents in this case by INS agents concerning their citizenship did not amount to a detention or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Present your citation of rebuttal to the clearly established precedents presented.

 

[John Taylor]

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.

Jenn, it isn't uneducated workers competing with uneducated rednecks, or blacks, or anyone that I'm worried about. Rather, it is the realization that the welfare state cannot be dismantled with the present electoral composition of the country, and that the millions of soon to be new citizens from south of the border are largely in favor of large-scale redistribution of wealth.

This means in turn, that immigration of those predisposed towards supporting politicians who will violate the rights of the people should be staunched.

Hence, here I stand.

 

[phill4paul]

O.k. I haven't really had a chance to get up to date on this.

For clarity:

Arizona has made it law that LE, with probable cause or suspension of an illegal activity, may ask for identification. True/false.

How does this differ from any law that is currently on the books?

Currently, in many states, probable cause is justification for law enforcement to ask for identification.

The problem here seems to be that this law is directed towards a specific group.

Profiling of a specific group and the ability for police to manufacture "probable cause", as is often the case, notwithstanding.

Or is that indeed the point in this discussion.

If after 9/11 New York had passed a law requiring the identification of anyone of Muslim descent based on the same standards as the Arizona law would it have received as much support?