New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

Crunch said:

How could they know what's in it if they haven't read it?

1. They haven't read it and it wouldn't matter if they had..... same talking points.

2. They've read it, but if they admit that, then it's obvious to any that have read it that they are lying through their teeth..... much easier to blow smoke then cover with "I haven't read it yet".

Same ****….. Same assholes.

Click to expand...

An aid or advisor tells them, duh, how do you think politics works?

pro-bipartisan said:

Why does it matter whether they read it if they know what's in it?

Click to expand...

Depends on what the word "is" means.:mrgreen: If they are getting their info from news or pro illegal people, the interpretation can be wrong. They may be given bad advice/info.

Hmmm....the cop pulls over the carload of people, and the driver can't cough up a valid license....none of the passengers speak english.

It's totally unreasonable for the cop to suspect that the car is stuffed with Invaders breaking the law, right?

jujuman13 said:

* * * * * * * *
Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * *

Click to expand...

I've no problem with people protesting THIS president.

I'm betting the Invading Horde won't do that, though.

pro-bipartisan said:

An aid or advisor tells them, duh, how do you think politics works?

Click to expand...

Then the Flapper should be elected, not the marionette.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Then the Flapper should be elected, not the marionette.

Click to expand...

Why? Anyone can read...

mike2810 said:

Depends on what the word "is" means.:mrgreen: If they are getting their info from news or pro illegal people, the interpretation can be wrong. They may be given bad advice/info.

Click to expand...

Now you are just reaching.

Liberals want you to think it's racist because its effective and will lose them votes in the future. Sweet and simple.

This is done through mainstream media. I moved to VT recently and people up here are outraged by the law, BUT THERE ARE NO ILLEGALS HERE. They dont understand the problem but they care because the media tells them to, its pathetic.

MikeVFF said:

Liberals want you to think it's racist because its effective and will lose them votes in the future. Sweet and simple.

Click to expand...

You get the prize.

pro-bipartisan said:

An aid or advisor tells them, duh, how do you think politics works?

Click to expand...

It's a short bill, written with the clear knowledge that the libs were going to find anything in the bill that smacked of racial profiling. Nothing in the bill does, so it stands to reason that either.....

#1. The "advisors" can't read.

#2. The "advisors" lied about what was in the bill.

#3. The libs are lying about what their "advisors" told them was in the bill.

#4. The libs didn't read it and are talking out their asses.

Take your pick.

Crunch said:

It's a short bill, written with the clear knowledge that the libs were going to find anything in the bill that smacked of racial profiling. Nothing in the bill does,

Click to expand...

Please check the posts on the first page. You're also welcome to deny that what is quoted from the law there actually exists and that mexicans and liberals together are just making it up and half the country lives in lalaland... the half you're not part of. :doh

Kandahar said:

Additionally, there's the matter of what constitutes "lawful contact." Illegal immigrants will be dissuaded from reporting crimes against them or against others, for fear that they will be deported.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that is where probable cause comes in. Reporting a crime would not be probable cause to ask for immigration status

It's not the reporting of the crime thats the probable cause.

SE102 said:

Probably this part. Whatever defines 'reasonable suspicion'. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Shouldn't be hard. There's really no reason anyone couldn't know what the definition of this is that has a vague understanding of the interwebs and that wonderful thing called Wikipedia:

"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that 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."

Click to expand...

As you'll see "Reasonable Suspicion" as a legal standard is not a new thing, nor a nebulus creation of this law and this law alone. It is a long standing legal definition that has a specific purpose and is intentionally vague due to its lower risk of damage (as compared with the slightly higher "probable cause" which is required for actual arrest).

Namely is the requirement for articulated facts and inferences to justify the use of an action based on reasonable suspicion. Since it is illegal in the United States to conduct searches based solely on racial profiling, and since there has been no evidence presented by anyone opposing this bill of any portion of the bill that somehow overturns that statute, "Because the person was hispanic" is not in any way, shape, or form legally allowable as "Reasonable Suspicion".

Indeed, even as a broader group of reasonings U.S. v. Montero-Camargo found that race couldn't be used in anything other than when looking for a specific suspect.

So just as its illegal to Frisk someone (Something requiring reasonable suspicion) based on the notion that "He's black", so too could you not ask someone for their papers simply because of the notion "He's Hispanic".

If you're issue with this law is that Reasonable Suspicion is too broad then you have a large amount of other laws you should've been, and need to start, campaigning against.

SE102 said:

Please check the posts on the first page. You're also welcome to deny that what is quoted from the law there actually exists and that mexicans and liberals together are just making it up and half the country lives in lalaland... the half you're not part of. :doh

Click to expand...

I've read the law...... have you?

If so, point out what part you find to be a bad law and explain why.... cite the bad parts, don't read more into it than is there.

Zyphlin said:

…Stuff and things…

Click to expand...

So you are saying that "Reasonable Suspicion" is an intentionally vague standard that, if used, will be scrutinized at a later date by someone, probably the police department in question and the courts involved?

country said:

Seems to me that is where probable cause comes in. Reporting a crime would not be probable cause to ask for immigration status

Click to expand...

That is correct, but it is a favorite strawman.

SE102 said:

It's not the reporting of the crime thats the probable cause.

Click to expand...

Then what would be the "probable cause" in asking for ID. when someone is reporting a crime?

What would be the "lawful contact" to look for probable cause when someone is reporting a crime?

I think you are just being intentionally dense so you can float your straw men.

The Mark said:

So you are saying that "Reasonable Suspicion" is an intentionally vague standard that, if used, will be scrutinized at a later date by someone, probably the police department in question and the courts involved?

Click to expand...

I'm betting that "because he had brown skin" ain't gunna cut it. :mrgreen:

Those who side with illegals "rights" have yet to be victimized by an illegal in some way or other. Sheriff Joe just arrested some who were doing just that, and working at a metal fabrication shop. Someone filed a complaint months ago and the sheriff's dept did an investigation. Looks like their employer will have to face the music as well.
One report was that they were using stolen identities....
A friend who works for a bunch of lawyers is having to recreate an accident where a coyote rolled a van while trying to elude immigration, and those injured are suing, and will probably get some compensation in a settlement. There were 28 illegals in the van.

I don't get the liberal view of this issue...if they are here illegally, they should have NO rights beyond basic human rights. There should be no right to cross our borders without permission, and no right to sue if they get hurt doing it....

UtahBill said:

Those who side with illegals "rights" have yet to be victimized by an illegal in some way or other. Sheriff Joe just arrested some who were doing just that, and working at a metal fabrication shop. Someone filed a complaint months ago and the sheriff's dept did an investigation. Looks like their employer will have to face the music as well.
One report was that they were using stolen identities....
A friend who works for a bunch of lawyers is having to recreate an accident where a coyote rolled a van while trying to elude immigration, and those injured are suing, and will probably get some compensation in a settlement. There were 28 illegals in the van.

I don't get the liberal view of this issue...if they are here illegally, they should have NO rights beyond basic human rights. There should be no right to cross our borders without permission, and no right to sue if they get hurt doing it....

Click to expand...

If we were living in the real world (not the liberal world) transporting 28 Illegal Aliens would be a felony. Any injury or death in the commission of a felony is treated as premeditated. Seems to me it would be the coyote that would be the focus of any law suit, but this isn't the "real world".

SE102 said:

It's not the reporting of the crime thats the probable cause.

Click to expand...

I think you just agreed with me. I said reporting a crime is no basis for asking for immigration status. Commiting a crime would be probable cause to ask for ID.

The Mark said:

It is a bit vague, and probably too discretionary.

But that is something that is necessary in law enforcement, sometimes...I think...meh, I dunno.

Click to expand...

Its not vague.. As Zyph pointed out already before I could get to it, there is a legal standard for "reasonable suspicion" which, believe it or not, all your traffic stops are based upon. Yes, when you are pulled over, the police officer must have "reasonable suspicion" to do so. This is reviewed on a case by case basis by the legal system via lawyers and judges to ensure that what the officer believed was reasonable suspicion actually complies with the courts opinion as well.

The vast majority of law enforcement action is based upon opinion, opinion on whether or not the facts at hand meet the established standards, and sometimes the opinion of law enforcement and the opinion of judges/attorneys just doesn't match. But the judges always win

Kandahar said:

Additionally, there's the matter of what constitutes "lawful contact." Illegal immigrants will be dissuaded from reporting crimes against them or against others, for fear that they will be deported.

Click to expand...

Lawful contact is just that, a contact with a citizen that is lawful. If I bust into a house with no authority to do so, that is not a lawful contact. If I stop a vehicle without reasonable suspicion to do so, that is not a lawful contact. If I stop a vehicle with reasonable suspicion then that IS a lawful contact. If I walk up to an individual on the street an ask them if they would mind speaking with me for a second (they have the right to say no unless I possess reasonable suspicion to place them in "investigative detention") and the individual agrees to stop and speak to me, that is a lawful contact.

Your second point is the ONLY issue I have with this legislation in its entirety.

SE102 said:

It's all too vague. How do you systematize what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien?

Click to expand...

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. This new law is going to bring about alot of troubles for the courts until the judges and the officers are in the same line of thinking on what reasonable suspicion of this particular crime constitutes. But for most people who understand what reasonable suspicion is already, its obvious.

The Mark said:

A thought/question: How to better define the 'reasonable suspicion'?

Click to expand...

Its already defined.

The Mark said:

Which is why, as I understand it, they must check with federal authorities as to the suspected illegal's immigration status.

Click to expand...

Yes. You can't arrest someone on reasonable suspicion, only probable cause. In order to obtain that probable cause, You would have to check with federal authorities in this particular case.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Hmmm....the cop pulls over the carload of people, and the driver can't cough up a valid license....none of the passengers speak english.

It's totally unreasonable for the cop to suspect that the car is stuffed with Invaders breaking the law, right?

Click to expand...

While yes most people would find it reasonable for the officer to think they were illegal immigrants, a procedure for that would be to obtain their ID (which by the way illegal immigrants often carry since everyone loves booze and cigarettes) and ensure they have a current address for the individuals and follow up with Federal authorities to ensure their immigration status, or turn this information over to ICE (which is probably already over-burdened in a place like Arizona).

Crunch said:

It's a short bill, written with the clear knowledge that the libs were going to find anything in the bill that smacked of racial profiling. Nothing in the bill does, so it stands to reason that either.....

#1. The "advisors" can't read.

#2. The "advisors" lied about what was in the bill.

#3. The libs are lying about what their "advisors" told them was in the bill.

#4. The libs didn't read it and are talking out their asses.

Take your pick.

Click to expand...

Correct.

SE102 said:

Please check the posts on the first page. You're also welcome to deny that what is quoted from the law there actually exists and that mexicans and liberals together are just making it up and half the country lives in lalaland... the half you're not part of. :doh

Click to expand...

Umm... Its obvious from this post that you don't understand, nor care to understand, what the words in the text from the law actually mean.

country said:

Seems to me that is where probable cause comes in. Reporting a crime would not be probable cause to ask for immigration status

Click to expand...

You don't need "probable cause" to ask federal authorities someones immigration status. You just need reasonable suspicion and a name, dob, ETC.
The probable cause for the state law IS the confirmation from Federal Immigration authorities that this individual is NOT a legal alien or resident of the United States.

Reporting a crime would be a reason to ask someone for their drivers license or identification, as you need to know who your victim or witness is.

At that point, if no valid state issued ID is given and the officer has reason to believe that the person should have one if here legally (ie, the victim meets the police outside of his CAR to report an incident that occurred at a nearby business where he is the victim, is alone, and cannot provide a driver's license), has difficulty understanding english as an adult, is not to the officers knowledge learning disabled (thus would have a defense to not understanding english), does not possess a valid visa or "green card" (which the person WOULD show, I know from experience), etc. The officer can then obtain this victims information that he needs to obtain anyways for his report and pass it along or follow up on his own to determine this person's immigration status, and obtain a warrant for arrest if he felt the need to do so upon finding out that the individual is not a legal resident/visitor of the United States.

SE102 said:

It's not the reporting of the crime thats the probable cause.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Crunch said:

Then what would be the "probable cause" in asking for ID. when someone is reporting a crime?

Click to expand...

This is no probable cause to ask for something.

1. Officers are allowed to ASK people pretty much anything just like any other person.
2. Asking for someone's identification, to, you know, IDENTIFY them when they have been a victim is the expected norm in law enforcement.

What would be the "lawful contact" to look for probable cause when someone is reporting a crime?

Click to expand...

The fact that the are lawfully speaking with a victim of a crime. How is that so hard? The lawful contact and the reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) do not have to be related. I think a great deal of people are failing to realize this. Or being intentionally ignorant to support their predisposed beliefs.

I think you are just being intentionally dense so you can float your straw men.

Click to expand...

Ditto for you.

Crunch said:

It's a short bill, written with the clear knowledge that the libs were going to find anything in the bill that smacked of racial profiling. Nothing in the bill does, so it stands to reason that either.....

#1. The "advisors" can't read.

#2. The "advisors" lied about what was in the bill.

#3. The libs are lying about what their "advisors" told them was in the bill.

#4. The libs didn't read it and are talking out their asses.

Take your pick.

Click to expand...

Or #5, the advisors read it and told government officials what was in the bill and the media, not Eric Holder, or other Democratic officials, twisted the bill to fit their needs.

country said:

I think you just agreed with me. I said reporting a crime is no basis for asking for immigration status. Commiting a crime would be probable cause to ask for ID.

Click to expand...

Probable cause is not needed to A S K for anything.