• 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

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.

You say only 2 cases (that you know of) and only after multiple violations--that's not good.

I guess once the new law goes into effect, police can pull up to a job site and question those who they suspect of being undocumented. If this does happen, I would hope that the other law re: the employer would be enforced as written. Like you said, if employers know they are risking their livelihood, they will be less inclined to cut corners.

From what I know about this -- it's mostly demolition and landscaping crews that hire day labors.

I've always wondered how fruit growers and wineries get away with this in CA.
 
This law does.



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?

Legal Definition of Probable Cause

When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.



At what point can a local enforcement officer step in and ask someone for their citizenship papers?

See above

What in this bill protects Hispanic citizens from being harassed by local enforcement simply because of their skin color or manner of speaking?

Same as above

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.

Probable cause is not something that is just made up, it must be provable in court, the very definition of it, limits it, in the way the 10th amendment limits the federal govt powers.
 
You say only 2 cases (that you know of) and only after multiple violations--that's not good.

I guess once the new law goes into effect, police can pull up to a job site and question those who they suspect of being undocumented. If this does happen, I would hope that the other law re: the employer would be enforced as written. Like you said, if employers know they are risking their livelihood, they will be less inclined to cut corners.

From what I know about this -- it's mostly demolition and landscaping crews that hire day labors.

In general this is true in my experience as well.

I've always wondered how fruit growers and wineries get away with this in CA.

I think that the laws are just not enforced over there, a more liberal mindset in general(Nancy Pelosi comes to mind)
 
What does Mexico do to illegals that enter it?
 
Local law enforcement enforces local laws, not our borders.

Are you actually suggesting that local law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal laws ???

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.

Complete hyperbole. Police cannot stop anyone only to have them prove they are citizens. There must be already stopped for a normal legal reason such as a traffic stop. The local law enforcement doesn't determine if they are legal or not. If they can't prove they are legally in the country, they are turned over to federal authorities.
 
Probable cause is not something that is just made up, it must be provable in court, the very definition of it, limits it, in the way the 10th amendment limits the federal govt powers.

Putting aside probable cause which is required for any arrest, this is what the Arizona law actually says...

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.

Do you have a legal definition for "reasonable suspicion"? Where in the language of this section does it say that local cop can't have a "reasonable" suspicion that a man is an illegal just because of his skin color or manner of speaking? What is to keep local cops from harassing Hispanic citizens by asking them several times a day, every day, for their papers?

That is what I have been talking about. Not whether or not a citizen can be arrested, but whether or not they can be harassed for their papers.

You have failed to provide any evidence that this law will not lead to many American's 14th amendment rights being trampled into the dirt.

My opinion is that the people who support this law simply don't know what it actually says. They just assume that an officer has to have reason to arrest someone before they can ask for their papers. That isn't how the law reads. It says that local cops only need a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal to demand their papers and it doesn't outline what "reasonable suspicion" is.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a legal definition for "reasonable suspicion"? Where in the language of this section does it say that local cop can't have a "reasonable" suspicion that a man is an illegal just because of his skin color or manner of speaking? What is to keep local cops from harassing Hispanic citizens by asking them several times a day, every day, for their papers?

That is what I have been talking about. Not whether or not a citizen can be arrested, but whether or not they can be harassed for their papers.

You have failed to provide any evidence that this law will not lead to many American's 14th amendment rights being trampled into the dirt.

Yep, it's a common legal standard and precedent....

...a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also sometimes called "arguable suspicion".
 
Yep, it's a common legal standard and precedent....

Excellent. Now what did the law say?

"REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN"

The criminal activity they are judging a person for is whether or not they are in the country illegally. By what standard are they going to determine this?

Let's try the rational of your example. If a white cop was in Mexico illegally, then how might he stand out as an illegal?

Hm...I would say you just proved my point.
 
Excellent. Now what did the law say?

"REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN"

The criminal activity they are judging a person for is whether or not they are in the country illegally. By what standard are they going to determine this?

Let's try the rational of your example. If a white cop was in Mexico illegally, then how might he stand out as an illegal?

Hm...I would say you just proved my point.

You need to research exactly what it means a little more, since based on this post, you have not clue what the restrictions of detaining someone based on reasonable suspicion entails.

Are you still claiming that local law enforcement cannot enforce federal laws ???? or did you give up on that one?
 
You need to research exactly what it means a little more, since based on this post, you have not clue what the restrictions of detaining someone based on reasonable suspicion entails.

I once again repeat why I think this is a bad law. It has nothing to do with "arrest" or "detaining". This law allows local cops to go up to Hispanic citizens, and on just the ground of their skin color or manner of speaking, they can demand their papers. This amount to harassment because it could very easily happen several times a day, every day, depending upon how bored the local cops are. That is in violation of their 14th amendment rights.

Are you still claiming that local law enforcement cannot enforce federal laws ???? or did you give up on that one?

Local cops can only enforce local laws. They cannot protect our borders.
 
Last edited:
You need to research exactly what it means a little more, since based on this post, you have not clue what the restrictions of detaining someone based on reasonable suspicion entails.

Are you still claiming that local law enforcement cannot enforce federal laws ???? or did you give up on that one?

Are you not forgetting the first part of the law, "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL."

The LE has to have a legal reason first to contact the person. There have been plenty of examples given already. Seems to me you need to look at the whole paragraph and not part to see what the law is saying.
 
I once again repeat why I think this is a bad law. It has nothing to do with "arrest" or "detaining". This law allows local cops to go up to Hispanic citizens, and on just the ground of their skin color or manner of speaking, they can demand their papers. This amount to harassment because it could very easily happen several times a day, every day, depending upon how bored the local cops are. That is in violation of their 14th amendment rights.

You "think" is all you've been able to show here.

Local cops can only enforce local laws. The cannot protect our borders.

Really? I suggest you do a little research on the subject before sounding off on things you know nothing about.

Ninth Circuit: Gonzales v. City of Peoria, "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes,"
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Salinas-Calderon, "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations,"

Tenth Circuit: United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws,"

Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).

Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant "shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law." The phrase, "some other officer," includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.

U.S. Justice Department

Should I continue?
 
I once again repeat why I think this is a bad law. It has nothing to do with "arrest" or "detaining". This law allows local cops to go up to Hispanic citizens, and on just the ground of their skin color or manner of speaking, they can demand their papers. This amount to harassment because it could very easily happen several times a day, every day, depending upon how bored the local cops are. That is in violation of their 14th amendment rights.

Federal law already requires resident aliens to carry registration documents. SB 1070 makes it a state crime to violate the federal law. The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship, such as a Driver's License. There is no need for citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport.
 
I once again repeat why I think this is a bad law. It has nothing to do with "arrest" or "detaining". This law allows local cops to go up to Hispanic citizens, and on just the ground of their skin color or manner of speaking, they can demand their papers. This amount to harassment because it could very easily happen several times a day, every day, depending upon how bored the local cops are. That is in violation of their 14th amendment rights.



Local cops can only enforce local laws. They cannot protect our borders.

You are ignoring the reasonable suspision wording in the law again.
 
Federal law already requires resident aliens to carry registration documents. SB 1070 makes it a state crime to violate the federal law. The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship, such as a Driver's License. There is no need for citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport.

Federal law doesn't give federal law enforcers the authority to ask for those documents based just on a person's skin color or manner of speaking.
 
You are ignoring the reasonable suspision wording in the law again.

You are the one who is ignoring it.

"REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN"

The criminal activity they are judging a person for is whether or not they are in the country illegally. By what standard are they going to determine this?
 
Federal law doesn't give federal law enforcers the authority to ask for those documents based just on a person's skin color or manner of speaking.

The bill prohibits racial profiling by saying that race can only be considered to the "extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Under no circumstances can the officer "solely" consider race, color or national origin. Racial profiling was not allowed before the bill and it's not allowed after the bill.
 
You "think" is all you've been able to show here.

Really? I suggest you do a little research on the subject before sounding off on things you know nothing about.

U.S. Justice Department

Should I continue?

Where do any of those cases give local cops the authority to demand papers from Hispanic citizens based solely on their skin color or manner of speaking? That is what I am primarily arguing.
 
The bill prohibits racial profiling by saying that race can only be considered to the "extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Under no circumstances can the officer "solely" consider race, color or national origin. Racial profiling was not allowed before the bill and it's not allowed after the bill.

Where does it say that in the law? Provide the actual wording.
 
I support racial profiling. What is wrong with it?

edit: which is not to say that this law supports it.
 
It does not apply to racial profiling. If you think it does, lay it out for me.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I would say that legally endorsed racial profiling definitely violates that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom