Peter Schiff: I'm very troubled by the law in Arizona

[Liberty Stud]

You're not very bright, are you? Or do you simply have an open-borders agenda you are pushing? Do you favor open borders, yes or no? Do you favor a border fence, yes or no?

 

[low preference guy]

Do you favor a border fence, yes or no?

I think the best way to stop illegals is stopping them at the border.

I oppose however, like Peter Schiff, the infringement of rights of innocent American Citizens with the excuse of combating illegal immigration.

 

[Liberty Stud]

I think the best way to stop illegals is stopping them at the border.

I oppose however, like Peter Schiff, the infringement of rights of innocent American Citizens with the excuse of combating illegal immigration.

So do you support a border fence, yes or no?

 

[low preference guy]

So do you support a border fence, yes or no?

If it works, yes. Should we give it a try? Yes. I also support repealing the welfare state. If it isn't repealed, I support asking people for papers once they request services. They should also be asked for papers when they are convicted of a crime.

What I don't support is asking innocent American Citizens who have not been convicted of a crime to prove that they are American Citizens.

 

[dannno]

Whats the big effin deal about producing "papers" when you already are being asked to produce a driver license and insurance when a cop stops you for speeding or a busted tail-light????

Because they don't have to stop you for shit. Read the bill. They can ask ANYBODY THEY FUCKING WANT for their papers. If you believe otherwise, you've bought another Faux style media ploy and need to do a little reading of the bill.

 

[dannno]

You're not very bright, are you? Or do you simply have an open-borders agenda you are pushing? Do you favor open borders, yes or no? Do you favor a border fence, yes or no?

Do you speakie the english?

A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, 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.

Is being here illegally a public offense that makes the person removable from the US?

Yes.

Can a law officer, WITHOUT A WARRANT, arrest a person if the officer has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that the person is here illegally?

Yes.

What is probable cause for being here illegally?

I don't fucking know.

Nobody on the entire forum has answered this question and I've asked it at least 20 times.

Anybody can see that American citizens can be searched and detained for engaging in lawful activity under this new law. If they simply look.

 

[Liberty Stud]

do your homework, dannno:

... What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach ...

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...ment-law-lie-who-press-will-cal#ixzz0mYF5dpbe

 

[low preference guy]

do your homework, dannno:

The word lawful contact only appears in provision B.

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 SUSPICION 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).

But it doesn't appear in provision E, so for that case, no lawful contact is needed.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, 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.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

 

[driege]

The word lawful contact only appears in provision B.

But it doesn't appear in provision E, so for that case, no lawful contact is needed.


E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, 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.

I don't think you understand what probable cause means. Right now, as long as a police officer has probable cause, they can enter your house and search it without a warrant. Probable isn't just seeing a Latino that doesn't speak English. In order for a police officer to have probable cause that someone was an illegal immigrant, they would have to witness the person crossing the border or doing something similar.

I understand your fear, but probable cause is correctly used in our society all the time. Looking like a stoner is not probable cause to be searched for pot. Police don't go around searching all the people with dreadlocks and tie-dyed shirts. If they do, the evidence gets thrown out. Likewise, the text of this law does not allow police to search or question all Latinos, since skin color does not equal probable cause.

 

[low preference guy]

I don't think you understand what probable cause means. As long as a police officer has probable cause, they can enter your house and search it without a warrant. In order for a police officer to have probably cause that someone was an illegal immigrant, they would have to witness the person crossing the border or doing something similar.

I understand your fear, but probable cause is correctly used in our society all the time. Looking like a stoner is not probable cause to be searched for pot. Police don't go around searching all the people with dreadlocks and tie-dyed shirts. If they do, the evidence gets thrown out. Likewise, the text of this law does not allow police to search or question all Latinos, since skin color does not equal probable cause.

What is probable cause for being an illegal immigrant? Only the police seeing someone crossing the border? I fear "being here" will be used as probable cause, that's why Judge Napolitano fears the police could detain him with this law if he grows a beard, but I'd like to hear his detailed analysis.

 

[driege]

What is probable cause for being an illegal immigrant? Only the police seeing someone crossing the border? I fear "being here" will be used as probable cause, that's why Judge Napolitano fears the police could detain him with this law if he grows a beard, but I'd like to hear his detailed analysis.

Unless our judges go completely insane, there is no way a person's "being here" constitutes probable cause that they came here illegally.

I think the Judge, who I respect immensely, was basing what he said off of the media's description of the law (like I did at first). If you listen to some of the media reports, you would think the law tells police that they must stop all Hispanics to check if they are illegal. I know you have some concerns, but you have to admit that they are concerns that the law will be exploited. If one reads the law itself, it certainly doesn't tell police they can walk up to people and ask for their identification.

 

[low preference guy]

Unless our judges go completely insane, there is no way a person's "being here" constitutes probable cause that they came here illegally.

I think the Judge, who I respect immensely, was basing what he said off of the media's description of the law (like I did at first). If you listen to some of the media reports, you would think the law tells police that they must stop all Hispanics to check if they are illegal. I know you have some concerns, but you have to admit that they are concerns that the law will be exploited. If one reads the law itself, it certainly doesn't tell police they must walk up to people and ask for their identification.

If the writers of the law cared about the 4th amendment, they would've just written that people can be asked for their identities after they were convicted instead of this "probable cause" crap. Also, if the law is abused, rights of innocent citizens are still being infringed upon, so better language should've been used to prevent that.

 

[cmasslibertarian]

I would just like to point out that liberty stud is an incredibly faggy name

 

[7402]

Good for Schiff opposing this law. He is not nearly pro-free immigration enough, though. He should use the opportunity to attack the welfare state and explain the deeper economics behind all of it.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

Good for Schiff opposing this law. He is not nearly pro-free immigration enough, though. He should use the opportunity to attack the welfare state and explain the deeper economics behind all of it.

He usually does, and IMO he blew the chance at this forum. He should have spoke of the welfare state rather than future emigration.

 

[phill4paul]

Whats the big effin deal about producing "papers" when you already are being asked to produce a driver license and insurance when a cop stops you for speeding or a busted tail-light????

What's the big effin deal when a cop pulls you for driving over the center line when you haven't? Or for speeding when you weren't.
Perhaps it was the 420 sticker/Gratefull Dead sticker on your mini-van. Or perhaps it is because you are of Hispanic descent even though you are fourth generation.
It's called profiling.
Now I don't know and perhaps I'm out of line here, but, I would bet that you are of non-Hispanic descent. For you it is perhaps an attitude of "Well, if you've got nothing to hide..."
I may be wrong and just want to put that out there.
This law does not just cover the driver of a vehicle but the occupants. If even one American citizen is detained pending proof of citizenship this law is a fail.

 

[phill4paul]

Can we give out "jerkoff" awards in this forum? IF so, you get one.

Next time try not so hard to be a liberty lover while preaching collectivism.

Ouch!

 

[angelatc]

I'm very troubled by the law in Arizona. I don't even know how it's going to be enforced. Apparently, the police is supposed to stop and question people they suspect of being here illegally.

When you start out with a false premise, the rest of your position means nothing.

 

[driege]

If the writers of the law cared about the 4th amendment, they would've just written that people can be asked for their identities after they were convicted instead of this "probable cause" crap.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? We're not allowed to find out the identity of someone until after a jury convicts them of a crime?

The fact is, the Arizona law does not lead to any additional risk of police abuse. If you have a problem with our current system, which while not perfect, is the best in the world, you should focus on that rather than this law.

Also, the Arizona lawmakers have gone even further to make sure there is no confusion about the law.

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

hanges to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

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.

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

Any doubt about whether this law allows cops to pull over minorities for no reason should be removed.

 

[low preference guy]

If you have a problem with our current system, which while not perfect, is the best in the world, you should focus on that rather than this law.

Are you sure? Have you been reading all the dial 911 and die threads that crop up about once a month at RPF?


One example from: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/...ght_Cops_Planning_Cover-Up_After_Shooting.htm

A homeowner was holding an intruder at gunpoint. The police came, and the wife told them what was going on. Apparently the police didn't get the message or something, and they went in and shot the homeowner six times in the back, twice when he was on the floor. Then they tried to cover it up. The family was lucky only because the wife didn't yet hang up the phone form their call to 911, and the attempt to cover up was saved.

But how many families are not that lucky? If I had time, I could find a recent news article of a guy who died just because police officer was calling him but he couldn't hear because the music in his car was too loud. Then he made a move, the police thought he was armed, and killed him.

Maybe the U.S. had a good system a while ago. Now whenever the police kills an innocent men, they are likely to get paid leaves and have their names kept secret.