View Poll Results: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Incorrect understanding of the law and its consequences.

    27 47.37%
  • Intentional effort to mislead, with a goal of increasing opposition.

    24 42.11%
  • Correct understanding of the law and its consequences.

    11 19.30%
  • Sincere disagreement with both the law and its consequences.

    25 43.86%
  • Other (Please explain).

    7 12.28%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 95 of 95

Thread: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

  1. #91
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    First, and foremost, reasonable suspicion IS defined. Is it somewhat loosely defined? Yes. Guess what, so is probable cause. These types of statutes are given a bit of latitude for officers specifically because every situation is not identical and so you can not right out code for every single solitary possible situation or else you're going to wind up with statute law that reads like 4 bibles stacked on top of each other.

    Second, there is an issue of the supremacy clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that in a direct sense, exercising reasonable suspicion based singularly on the facet of race is unconstituional and thus illegal. Additionally, U.S. v. Montero-Camargo found that race can't be part of a broader group of reasonings as well. Its currently constitutional only to use race when looking for a specific suspect. Last I checked the Arizona Law did NOT overturn the supremecy clause so there's no reason to yell and scream about "show it to me where it says they can't ask for papers cause someone's brown" in the law because it would be stupid and wasteful to put it in there because its already made unconstitutional at a level HIGHER than where the states are. This is like saying that if a state does a law regarding funding for abortion clinics that it must include a piece of law that says abortions are legal prior to the 3rd trimester despite the fact that this is the federal constitutional standard.

    Third, common sense involves here. Reasonable Suspicion is already on the books and is used for a variety of things. Ask yourself this. Is it legal to frisk someone just because they're black. The answer? No, it is not. Yet I garauntee you if you go to the law and statutes on Frisking that it's not going to have a section that says "It is illegal to frisk a person solely because they are African American". If these kind of idiotic pieces of law that you want shoved in aren't there in other cases reasonble suspicion is used, and racial profiling isn't allowable in those situations by federal law, how exactly are you thinking that its in any way intelligent or legitimate to argue that this law somehow allows it.

    Fourth, an officer has to be able to specify and articulate legitimate facts and infrences to his superiors or to a court to justify the use of reasonable suspicion. If they are unable to do so then they'd definitely have a lawsuit and punishment on their hand, as that's what the standard requires. Going "Uh, he looks mexican" is not articulating legitimate facts and infrences that would allow for any action to be taken because its unconstitutional. There would have to be legitimate reasons states for it to be upheld.

    Finally, COULD there be racial profiling going on? Yes, yes there could. In an unofficial way, such as an officer seeing a hispanic person that is speeding and deciding to pull him over rather than the white guy he just previously saw speeding. That said, two things on this....

    1) Even if the reason the officer is choosing this one is because the violator is hispanic there would still need to be legitimate reasonable suspicion circumstances for it to in any way stick.

    2) This kind of racial profiling is still, one, technically illegal and doesn't become magically legal by the legislation and, two, could happen even WITHOUT this legislation present.

    As such, the potential for internal racial profiling doesn't magically exist simply because of this law but is always possible and thus is not the laws fault since it in no way magically legalizes it.

    You all can keep screaming about "reasonable suspicion" and act like it just came into existance with this law...but it didn't, and it doesn't allow in any way the things you all are suggesting it does.


    That's fine, you're opinion on this issue is not just wrong, its ignorantly wrong as its clear you're not taking the time to educate yourself on the very thing you're forming an opinion on.
    No, I disagree.

    First off, 'reasonable suspicion' is what is being addressed here (ref: Terry v. Ohio, 1968), and while you claim that reasonable suspicion is 'somewhat loosely defined' and go on to defend how it will be used for the greater good of the public, nowhere have you made mention of the negatives, which are pretty worrisome. The new Arizona law does not directly implicate the court case, anyway. It only requires Arizona state and local officials to investigate a person's immigration status in the course of a lawful encounter. Such an encounter might be initiated by the suspected undocumented immigrant himself, rather than the official, but we can agree that more often, suspicion about immigration status will arise in the mind of a police officer after he has lawfully stopped a suspect. The Fourth Amendment from Terry v Ohio already requires that the police officer have an reasonable suspicion of crime to make the initial stop, but the new Arizona law adds on something additional. If the officer develops a further reasonable suspicion that the detainee is an undocumented immigrant, the officer then must take steps to determine the detainee's immigration status.

    Should an officer's hunch be relevant here? No. Hunches are only as good as the base of experience on which they rely upon. A person who has had numerous opportunities to sort undocumented immigrants from persons lawfully present in the United States might develop an ability to suspect and detect them. But even then, shouldn't we legitimately worry that skin color and accent would often play a large part in triggering the agent's hunch? Furthermore, Arizona state and local officials who lack training and experience sorting out undocumented immigrants would likely lean even more heavily on such factors.

    Of course there will be some circumstances that objectively give rise to reasonable suspicion, even without considering race or accent. A police officer stopping a speeding minivan on a known alien-smuggling corridor and discovering twelve passengers crammed inside, all lacking identification, would of course be a prime example of reasonable suspicion. It's such an obvious case, and it would satisfy the requirements of probable cause. But the Arizona law applies in numerous other contexts as well.

    I think that the critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate on 'reasonable suspicion' that it places on state and local officials is that there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion in the first place. That's true regardless of whether the officials act on reasonable grounds, or on the basis of a hunch informed by less reasonable grounds. Whatever you think of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic here.
    Last edited by Singularity; 05-24-10 at 10:28 AM.

  2. #92
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    No.

    First off, 'reasonable suspicion' is what is being addressed here (ref: Terry v. Ohio, 1968), and while you claim that reasonable suspicion is 'somewhat loosely defined' and go on to defend how it will be used for the greater good of the state, nowhere have you made mention of the negatives, which are pretty worrisome.
    No, I haven't made mention of the "negatives" because one, there is no "new" negatives that weren't already present because reasonable suspicion isn't new and two, the "negatives" you and others keep focusing on DON'T EXIST.

    If, after the initial stop, the officer develops a further reasonable suspicion that the detainee is an undocumented immigrant, the officer then must take steps to ascertain the detainee's immigration status.
    Correct, and just like "He's a black guy" isn't a reasonable suspicion to stop a car, "He's a brown guy" isn't a one to ask for paperwork.

    Should an officer's hunch be relevant here? No. Hunches are only as good as the base of experience on which they rest.
    No, which is exactly why "Hunches" are not allowed under Reasonable Suspicion, because "hunches" can't be clearly articulated with specific and decernable facts.

    You're not concerned about this at all?
    Not particularly. First, it would be illegal and put the cop and the department in a liability issue if they asked for papers "based on a hunch" or "because he looked mexican" or something of the sort and not for a legitimately articulated reasonable suspicion. Second, since this law doesn't magically change what "reasonble suspicion" is nor doe sit overrule the Supreme Court, the only way "racial profiling" of any kind of would come into play would be if its a purely and wholey internal thing to the officer and works in conjunction with legitimate reasons for reasonable suspicion. That particular circumstance, where one internally racially profiles someone doing something suspicious, could happen even WITHOUT this law in place so isn't somehow a danger of this law.

    So no, I'm not really concerned about things that aren't allowable under the law.

    Will it be abused at times? Sure. No law or power is full proof and if we removed every law and tool given to law enforcement that MIGHT be abused by one in ten thousand officers we'd have nothing on the books. But we don't see officers running all over frisking people because they're black, or pulling over every asian person they see, or stopping every woman that comes out of a store because she may be a shop lifter. So I don't think if reasonable suspicion isn't massively abused in every other situation that its used that it's going to suddenly be wantonly abused here.

  3. #93
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,715

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by pro-bipartisan View Post
    You should start taking posts in the cotnext they are written in (and not just make irrelevant posts).
    Wait...wait...lets see...I responded to the original post. Because my response wasnt a ringing endorsement of Obama, you Lewinsky types invoke the name of Bush...as if 1-blaming Bush is an excuse for Obamas repeated failures and 2-you think I somehow rubber stamp Bush's presidency. I dont. I think he did a dismal job on controlling spending, on immigration, on social security reform, etc.

    Thats seems pretty much in context...so the only person irrelevant here is you.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    But the words 'reasonable suspicion' are. And since there is nothing in the law from preventing the police from doing so, they most certainly can detain you for those reasons alone. Defense attorneys won't have an obvious mechanism for contesting the reasonability of the request for documentation, as the very fact that the individual(s) are hispanic is reason enough. The question to me is not will it be used - I think it's obvious it will be - but how will it survive judicial interpretation here. Will a judge throw it out because any 'resonable suspicion' is not gleaned by physical evidence from an illegal stop, but simply because the person is of a particular race? Or because he is also speaking Spanish?
    The fact that Hispanic people have been living in the United States, legally, and able to speak spanish as they wish for centuries proves in itself that it would not be 'reasonable' to suspect that a person is an illegal immigrant based upon that information alone..........
    Again, 'reasonable suspicion' is nothing new and the courts, as well as law enforcement, will already know how to handle this.


    The courts have made clear in other contexts that reasonable suspicion must be supported by "specific and articulable facts"; a mere hunch cannot give rise to reasonable suspicion. Nor can a suspect's race or ethnicity. So while you and those who support the law believe that simply being Hispanic wouldn't be enough to do it, it ignores some important realities. A judge would interpret such things as, say, drug smuggling and human trafficking as 'reasonable suspicion' in cases like this (on that we can both agree),[/quote]No, I can't agree. Legal residents of the United States have been smuggling drugs for decades.
    we part ways on the issue of how reasonable suspicion will be used under such a law. Your belief is that nobody will be profiled, and everything will be hunky dory. I see it as a recipe for police abuse, and for unchecked racial profiling. Time will tell which one of us ends up correct on the issue.
    Again, there are statutes that prevent police from using racial profiling. Just like a person can't stop a car simply because the driver is black, someone can't stop a person simply because they are hispanic and start asking them questions in relation to their immigration status.
    Your forgetting the keyword, "LEGAL CONTACT". It is NOT legal to stop a person (contact) simply because they are hispanic.




    My discussion is not about what powers lie with the Arizona courts here, but what I see as problematic with the new law.
    And what you see as problematic is based upon your misunderstanding of the two phrases "legal contact" and "reasonable suspicion" which are two SEPARATE ideas, not one in the same. An officer cannot have "legal contact" with a subject because of some faulty pre-determined "reasonable suspicion" that they are an illegal immigrant. The legal contact must come from some other place, unless of course, the individual in question is a KNOWN illegal immigrant that law enforcement in that area have dealt with numerous times in the past, and their immigration status is already known.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by pro-bipartisan View Post
    Well defined? Then what is the exact definition? There is no room for it to be interpreted?
    All legal standards have room for interpretation.

    If this is new to you, don't worry, those who are actually in the business of enforcing the law and running the courts have been doing this for decades if not centuries.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •