• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

Suspicions that are reasonable. Again, this is not the only application of such rules. Do cops just harass everyone on sight because they can supposedly make "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" to mean anything they want?

Of course not. Why in the world do you think this would be any different?

I think some do, BUT, the courts can decide whether their bases constituted "reasonable suspicion."

I worked for a federal judge and watched hearings on drug cases where "probable cause" was the issue. Oh my goodness. Some of the reasons the police gave for pulling someone over were truly bogus, and the judge called them on it. But, that's his job--to determine if the standard was met in a particular case.
 
What is being debated here and elsewhere is how this law will play out once it is put into practice.

While I understand some of the concern coming from the left and far-left about this potentially becoming a civil rights abuse, I believe that in Arizona (and California) the problem of illegal immigration has gotten so out of hand and become such a drain on public resources that drastic measures are necessary. I also believe that peace officers, by and large, are interested in enforcing the the law fairly and keeping the peace--meaning they are not motivated nor inclined to start rounding up hispanics in an abusive manner.

I have seen first hand how profiling can be effective in stopping crimes. Police are trained to observe and make decisions based on certain criteria. The police officers I have interviewed and observed are exceptionally good at this. I would hope that before this law goes into effect some sort of training and criteria will be set as to what specifically patrol officers can and can not do under the new law.

In most of the discussions there seems to be some disagreement about how this law will even be implemented once it goes into effect-- probable cause, racial profiling etc. Some commentators have been talking about a traffic stop example. Can an officer stop someone for a busted taillight then ask to see his papers? THIS ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION MAKES NO SENSE. "See his papers?" What papers? You can not get a driver's license or register a car without proof of residency. My understanding is that if you can not produce a driver's license or some form of valid ID, the new law allows police officers to ask for proof of residency. Why wasn't this done before? Because local police didn't have jurisdiction over immigration.

Here is the scenario I believe may become problematic. A group of hispanic men are hanging around a building supply center in the morning, waiting for General Contractors to pull up in their pickup trucks and offer them work. If the police pull up, surround these men and ask to see ID's because these men fit a certain profile, then is this a violation of their rights?

My position is this -- in this particular situation, even if the answer is technically 'Yes' this does violate their rights, I'm still okay with it. As long as the men are not physically abused, and only taken into custody (those who can't produce an ID or proof of residency) to be turned over to INS.

One last question: In AZ, if you knowingly hire an illegal immigrant/undocumented worker and pay them under the table without filing payroll taxes etc., what crime have you committed and what is the potential punishment?

IMO - States also need to address the supply/demand issue of undocumented workers. Who is hiring them and how come no agency is investigating or fining these employers?
 
I think some do, BUT, the courts can decide whether their bases constituted "reasonable suspicion."

I worked for a federal judge and watched hearings on drug cases where "probable cause" was the issue. Oh my goodness. Some of the reasons the police gave for pulling someone over were truly bogus, and the judge called them on it. But, that's his job--to determine if the standard was met in a particular case.

The police can usually find some reason to stop a person if they are suspicious of them. With that said, Chris Korbach, a law professor a the University of Missouri that helped write the bill says that the police can only question a person's status if they are already stopped for some other reason, probably a traffic stop. He says the police will not and cannot stop people randomly and ask them for proof of citizenship.
 
I think some do, BUT, the courts can decide whether their bases constituted "reasonable suspicion."

I worked for a federal judge and watched hearings on drug cases where "probable cause" was the issue. Oh my goodness. Some of the reasons the police gave for pulling someone over were truly bogus, and the judge called them on it. But, that's his job--to determine if the standard was met in a particular case.
Oh I agree with that! Cops aren't perfect, and some are righteous asswipes. Just like people from any other walks of life. But that's what the courts are there for. That's why there is a provision there that states 'reasonable suspicion' or 'probable cause'. Because that can and will be called into question - as it should be.
 
Mark Levin
April 26, 2010 show.

For those interested in hearing an explanation about the law from a constitutional lawyer, the first 15 min should be enough.

In short: The state is doing nothing other than upholding clearly stated federal law.
Something the feds haven't done.

Hey, Ho.. way to go... Ar-i-zon-a.... (to The Pretenders... Ohio)

.
 
Last edited:
I must say I am impressed with the level of agreement among folks with different political attitudes. Not so many ideologues here. Congrats!
 
Mark Levin

For those interested in hearing an explanation about the law from a constitutional lawyer, the first 15 min should be enough.

In short: The state is doing nothing other than upholding federal law.

.

It's the link on the right on the page, marked 4/26 Mark Levin Show
 
Anyone is targeted if the police officer feels like it. Apparently that is good enough to bypass the 4th amendment now.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Funny how selective conservatives get when they support bills like this. Only targets illegals my ass.

edit: Did it occur to you that you only seem to rail about personal rights when it supports your personal political beliefs?


Can you tell me how this law violates this amendment, no one is going to be searched or siezed, unless they are breaking a law. Asking someome to see their papers is not searching and siezing.
 
You don't listen very well. Nobody here is arguing against a law that targets illegals. They are arguing against a law that requires anyone to submit documents to police proving that they are legal or face being arrested. That gives the police quite a bit of power to find anyone with brown skin and ask for their papers. The law is too broad and gives the police too much discretion. If the law did only target illegals, then very few people would be complaining. But the law is poorly written and so it can serve as a tool of discrimination.

There is already a federal law that says this same thing, why were you not objecting to that one?

Now we will have local police enforcing the same thing that the feds should have been doing in the first place.
Thats the only difference.
 
This bill lets a police officer detain you until your documents are proven valid based on a "suspicion."

So yes this bill is the problem.


Not just a suspicion, a reasonable suspicion, HUGE difference. One can be proven valid in a court of law, the other not.
 
There is already a federal law that says this same thing, why were you not objecting to that one?

Now we will have local police enforcing the same thing that the feds should have been doing in the first place.
Thats the only difference.

There is no federal law which gives local law enforcement the ability to harass anyone they simply suspect might be an illegal immigrant. Try again. If you want to pull up the federal law and see so for yourself then have at it. That is not the only difference, it is a major difference.
 
That isn't a reason not to have the law. Try again.

This is exactly the reason not to have this law. It would not be hard to amend the law so that it specifically states by what criteria that local law enforcement could reasonably suspect someone is an illegal. In fact, it could even be the same criteria as listed in the federal law. The only reason that people like you don't want to see that happen is because you are racists who want to see law abiding Hispanic citizens being harassed and having their 14th amendment rights trampled upon. That is the only way I can understand why you guys would want to have such an obviously vague law on the books.

But I don't care. As it stands now, it will only take one bored, racist cop to lead to this law being overturned by the courts.
 
Last edited:
If you are an IMMIGRANT yes, but not everyone who doesn't speak English is an immigrant. Some were BORN in this country and DO NOT speak English. It is NOT a requirement to pass an English comprehension test to be a citizen if you are BORN here.

Do you know a lot of people that were born in the US, went to school here and cannot speak English? I live in Phoenix and work in construction and know a lot of Mexicans. I cannot think of a single case were your example applies.

The ones that don't speak English are illegal and the ones that grew up here do.

Your argument does not hold water in the real world.
 
There is no federal law which gives local law enforcement the ability to harass anyone they simply suspect might be an illegal immigrant. Try again. If you want to pull up the federal law and see so for yourself then have at it. That is not the only difference, it is a major difference.

Are you claiming that local law enforcement is not allowed to arrest someone that is breaking a federal law??

I have to show an ID to buy sinus medicine for my wife. If they are legal citizens, they should have no problem with this law.
 
What is being debated here and elsewhere is how this law will play out once it is put into practice.

While I understand some of the concern coming from the left and far-left about this potentially becoming a civil rights abuse, I believe that in Arizona (and California) the problem of illegal immigration has gotten so out of hand and become such a drain on public resources that drastic measures are necessary. I also believe that peace officers, by and large, are interested in enforcing the the law fairly and keeping the peace--meaning they are not motivated nor inclined to start rounding up hispanics in an abusive manner.

I have seen first hand how profiling can be effective in stopping crimes. Police are trained to observe and make decisions based on certain criteria. The police officers I have interviewed and observed are exceptionally good at this. I would hope that before this law goes into effect some sort of training and criteria will be set as to what specifically patrol officers can and can not do under the new law.

In most of the discussions there seems to be some disagreement about how this law will even be implemented once it goes into effect-- probable cause, racial profiling etc. Some commentators have been talking about a traffic stop example. Can an officer stop someone for a busted taillight then ask to see his papers? THIS ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION MAKES NO SENSE. "See his papers?" What papers? You can not get a driver's license or register a car without proof of residency. My understanding is that if you can not produce a driver's license or some form of valid ID, the new law allows police officers to ask for proof of residency. Why wasn't this done before? Because local police didn't have jurisdiction over immigration.

Here is the scenario I believe may become problematic. A group of hispanic men are hanging around a building supply center in the morning, waiting for General Contractors to pull up in their pickup trucks and offer them work. If the police pull up, surround these men and ask to see ID's because these men fit a certain profile, then is this a violation of their rights?

My position is this -- in this particular situation, even if the answer is technically 'Yes' this does violate their rights, I'm still okay with it. As long as the men are not physically abused, and only taken into custody (those who can't produce an ID or proof of residency) to be turned over to INS.

One last question: In AZ, if you knowingly hire an illegal immigrant/undocumented worker and pay them under the table without filing payroll taxes etc., what crime have you committed and what is the potential punishment?

IMO - States also need to address the supply/demand issue of undocumented workers. Who is hiring them and how come no agency is investigating or fining these employers?


I am a contractor in Phoenix, there are already laws here that say you must e-verify new employees, the penalty for hiring illegals can be a fine or loss of your business license.

That said, I think that there have been only 2 cases where anything was done to the employeer and both of those were recent (the law is about 3 years old) and only after multiple violations. I personally stopped hiring illegals when the law went into effect (too much liability, if I lose my license my family and all my employees familys no longer have an income)
This new law has more teeth as far as the employeers are concerned.
 
Are you claiming that local law enforcement is not allowed to arrest someone that is breaking a federal law??

Local law enforcement enforces local laws, not our borders.

I have to show an ID to buy sinus medicine for my wife. If they are legal citizens, they should have no problem with this law.

If every day you got stopped several times on the street by cops and were asked to show them your ID just because of your skin color or the way you spoke, then I think it would bother you quite a bit. Local cops have no right to bother a citizen without probable cause. There isn't even anything in this bill that highlights what "probable cause" is when it comes to determining who is and who isn't an illegal.
 
Last edited:
Suspicions that are reasonable. Again, this is not the only application of such rules. Do cops just harass everyone on sight because they can supposedly make "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" to mean anything they want?

Of course not. Why in the world do you think this would be any different?

Hyperbolic. Of course cops don't "just harass everyone on sight." That's what we call a strawman.

What is a cop supposed to base this "reasonable suspicion" on? Also, do you usually carry proof of citizenship around? I don't. (driver's license is not proof)

It must be nice to live in your world where the police would never abuse this law to detain people when they would otherwise not have the probable cause to do so. "I don't have any evidence of any crime but I suspect he's an immigrant because of his accent!"

edit: I should also point out that "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are not the same thing, legally speaking.
 
Last edited:
There is no federal law which gives local law enforcement the ability to harass anyone they simply suspect might be an illegal immigrant. Try again. If you want to pull up the federal law and see so for yourself then have at it. That is not the only difference, it is a major difference.

There is no law that gives anyone the ability to HARASS anyone

I think you are grasping at straws to make your point here.
 
Do you know a lot of people that were born in the US, went to school here and cannot speak English? I live in Phoenix and work in construction and know a lot of Mexicans. I cannot think of a single case were your example applies.

The ones that don't speak English are illegal and the ones that grew up here do.

Your argument does not hold water in the real world.

Well, not exactly true. Most of my family were born here - but we learned German and Hungarian while we were little as that's mostly what was spoken at home - our family's friends and neighbors lived in German / Slavic communities so it was easy to pick up. We learned English later when we were around 4 or 5 and then of course during school. While pockets of ethnic groups may be a little uncommon these days, they still do exist especially with non-European ethnic groups. Some people who moved to America years and years ago and learned enough English to pass the test - long ago forgot it because their entire community speaks something other than English. That may not sit well with some but it's still there ... and generalizing by stating they are therefore not citizens is frankly, incorrect.
 
There is no law that gives anyone the ability to HARASS anyone

This law does.

I think you are grasping at straws to make your point here.

My point is that this law is too vague. Tell me. Exactly what is probable cause in determining whether a person is illegal or not? At what point can a local enforcement officer step in and ask someone for their citizenship papers? What in this bill protects Hispanic citizens from being harassed by local enforcement simply because of their skin color or manner of speaking?

I want to protect out borders as much as anyone, but not through bad legislation which gives local cops a free license to harrass anyone whom they can make up a "probable cause" to harass.
 
There is no federal law which gives local law enforcement the ability to harass anyone they simply suspect might be an illegal immigrant. Try again. If you want to pull up the federal law and see so for yourself then have at it. That is not the only difference, it is a major difference.

Local law enforcement enforces local laws, not our borders.



If every day you got stopped several times on the street by cops and were asked to show them your ID just because of your skin color or the way you spoke, then I think it would bother you quite a bit. Local cops have no right to bother a citizen without probable cause. There isn't even anything in this bill that highlights what "probable cause" is when it comes to determining who is and who isn't an illegal.

Your argument is based on maybes and what ifs, therefore cannot be supported.
 
Your argument is based on maybes and what ifs, therefore cannot be supported.

No ****ing duh! The law doesn't take affect for 90 days. All you can do is speculate based upon how the law is written what will happen. And this law is clearly poorly written because no one can answer one simple question.

What does it do to protect Hispanic citizens from being harassed by local law enforcement simply for their skin color or manner of speaking?

If you can't answer that question, then you might want to ask yourself why you are so eager to risk trampling on other people's 14th amendment rights just to get at illegal immigrants.
 
Hyperbolic. Of course cops don't "just harass everyone on sight." That's what we call a strawman.

What is a cop supposed to base this "reasonable suspicion" on? Also, do you usually carry proof of citizenship around? I don't. (driver's license is not proof) It must be nice to live in your world where the police would never abuse this law to detain people when they would otherwise not have the probable cause to do so. "I don't have any evidence of any crime but I suspect he's an immigrant because of his accent!"

edit: I should also point out that "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are not the same thing, legally speaking.


In AZ a drivers license is proof because you have to show proof of citisenship to get one.
 
Hyperbolic. Of course cops don't "just harass everyone on sight." That's what we call a strawman.

So you and others haven't been suggesting that cops will be asking for people's ids when they're just out for a walk? No one has suggested that? :doh

What is a cop supposed to base this "reasonable suspicion" on? Also, do you usually carry proof of citizenship around? I don't. (driver's license is not proof)
Yes, I do. I carry my drivers license, my passport, and my SS card. If something happens to me, I want to make damn sure people know who I am. I also want to be able to provide proof of who I am should I be involved in any legally questionable activity, whether voluntary or not. But, that's just me.

As for what they'll base the reasonable suspicion on, why don't you ask cops what they EVER base their reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Whatever they've been basing it on previously are the same things they'll be basing it on now. That hasn't changed.

It must be nice to live in your world where the police would never abuse this law to detain people when they would otherwise not have the probable cause to do so. "I don't have any evidence of any crime but I suspect he's an immigrant because of his accent!"
Immigrant is irrelevant. It's not illegal to be an immigrant.

And yes, there are some cops who abuse the law all the time. That why we have court systems and lawyers. They are the minority though, fortunately
 
Well, not exactly true. Most of my family were born here - but we learned German and Hungarian while we were little as that's mostly what was spoken at home - our family's friends and neighbors lived in German / Slavic communities so it was easy to pick up. We learned English later when we were around 4 or 5 and then of course during school. While pockets of ethnic groups may be a little uncommon these days, they still do exist especially with non-European ethnic groups. Some people who moved to America years and years ago and learned enough English to pass the test - long ago forgot it because their entire community speaks something other than English. That may not sit well with some but it's still there ... and generalizing by stating they are therefore not citizens is frankly, incorrect.

I am speaking of the illegals in AZ, the ones this thread is about.
 
Back
Top Bottom