• 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!

New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?


  • Total voters
    49
The problem is that people who don't live in Arizona don't see the things that Arizonians see. Reasonable suspicion should be a broad term so more people who are obviously illegal can be captured. If you aren't an illegal immigrant then why wouldn't you support 'reasonable suspicion' being a broad term? I am fine with getting pulled over because I look Spanish if more illegals are captured.
 
According to the new law, it most certainly is, right?
I must have missed that in the legislation... Can you point this line of text out to me?

The police are given a fairly wide latitude here, and I certainly saw nothing in the law that put any limit whatsoever on 'reasonable suspicion'.[/quote]Because reasonable suspicion is a very well known legal standard that has been used for decades. The police officers already know what reasonable suspicion is NOT. The only people pissed off about this are people who have no clue what it is, and think it is some type of new concept.
In most states, it only takes an officer to have "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a traffic stop. North Carolina included.

Basically, if the police officer wants to check your immigration papers simply because you are hispanic or speaking Spanish, you could face detainment if you don't produce them, or they verify your immigration status by holding you until they do.
And that would be that person's own problem for agreeing to answer those questions. Stopping someone because they are hispanic is not reasonable suspicion to stop anyone. However, if an officer walks up to a person on the street and asks them, and they agree to answer the questions, the Officer has done nothing wrong because this is what is called a "voluntary contact". The individual is free to tell the officer they don't feel like talking to them and walk away.


If the law prevents officers from doing this specifically, can you show it to me? I missed it when I read the law, and since this is what the fuss is all about, i'd love to see it.

Learn what reasonable suspicion is, its nothing new. Thats the problem here.


And no, just because someone is hispanic, it is not REASONABLE to believe they are an illegal immigrant. Thus any suspicion would not be REASONABLE. And any action taken on faulty reasonable suspicion would be nullified.
 
So if there are bodies stackedon top of each other that isn't reasonable suspicion? If it were, there would be a lot more illegal immigrants captured.


Depends on what was viewed.

If "bodies" are "stacked on top of each other" and appeared to be lifeless.

I don't think you could find a place in the U.S. where that stop would not be justified.
 
The problem is that people who don't live in Arizona don't see the things that Arizonians see. Reasonable suspicion should be a broad term so more people who are obviously illegal can be captured. If you aren't an illegal immigrant then why wouldn't you support 'reasonable suspicion' being a broad term? I am fine with getting pulled over because I look Spanish if more illegals are captured.


Jesus christ, I need to make an entire thread dedicated to this...

REASONABLE SUSPICION IS A WELL DEFINED LEGAL STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN USED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DECADES.


 
Jesus christ, I need to make an entire thread dedicated to this...

REASONABLE SUSPICION IS A WELL DEFINED LEGAL STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN USED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DECADES.



Well defined? Then what is the exact definition? There is no room for it to be interpreted?
 
Depends on what was viewed.

If "bodies" are "stacked on top of each other" and appeared to be lifeless.

I don't think you could find a place in the U.S. where that stop would not be justified.

No they aren't lifeless, do you think the stop would be justified.
 
I must have missed that in the legislation... Can you point this line of text out to me?

Certainly.

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

Because reasonable suspicion is a very well known legal standard that has been used for decades. The police officers already know what reasonable suspicion is NOT. The only people pissed off about this are people who have no clue what it is, and think it is some type of new concept. In most states, it only takes an officer to have "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a traffic stop. North Carolina included.

Yes, but the police officer does not stop me and ask for my immigration papers simply because he suspects I am hispanic. Under Arizona's law, I see nothing that prevents them from profiling, which is why I asked if you could show me specifically where it does so.

I haven't seen it anywhere in that new law, and again, since this is what the fuss is all about, then seems it should be in there.


And no, just because someone is hispanic, it is not REASONABLE to believe they are an illegal immigrant. Thus any suspicion would not be REASONABLE. And any action taken on faulty reasonable suspicion would be nullified.

I completely agree that a judge would interpret "reasonable suspicion" in this context very narrowly. A situation like human smuggling is just about the only situation I can imagine that would survive judicial scrutiny. You and those who support your position claim that looking Mexican or speaking Spanish would not be enough, but the problem with this logic, however, is that it's hard to see how these decisions will be subjected to judicial review. The reason there is extensive case law interpreting what "reasonable suspicion" means is because defense attorneys routinely move to suppress any evidence procured by way of an illegal stop or frisk, at which point the police must articulate the basis of their reasonable suspicion. If they can't do so to the judge's satisfaction, the evidence is suppressed and the charges are often dismissed. Police quickly learn to follow the rules if they want their charges to stick.

In the immigration context, however, there is no evidence to suppress. Defense attorneys will not have an obvious mechanism for contesting the reasonability of the request for documentation. I can see an occasional civil rights complaint filed by the ACLU or a similar group, but I don't see what circumstances would lead to any kind of routine judicial review of these decisions. The police will largely be on the honor system.

And that's why this law is so problematic to me. It's a recipe for police abuse and for unchecked racial profiling. And even if the police generally do a good job of controlling themselves, the mere hint of such abuse will only drive the undocumented community farther underground.

But that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Certainly.

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
Im sorry, the word Brown and English or Spanish aren't in there like you said.




Yes, but the police officer does not stop me and ask for my immigration papers simply because he suspects I am hispanic. Under Arizona's law, I see nothing that prevents them from profiling, which is why I asked if you could show me specifically where it does so.
It doesn't have to specifically say so. Does it specifically say so for every other law that is on the books? No. Because Statutes that restrict officers from racial profiling are already on the books in a different chapter of the statute, not to mention local directives.

So every time a new law is made you think the lawmakers should again talk about racial profiling.. Do you know any law where racial profiling IS allowed in its specific statute legislation?

This is silly **** really.
Dont make **** up and go with it, go with what we have. Stop trying to change the situation to make it fit your predisposed opinion.


I haven't seen it anywhere in that new law, and again, since this is what the fuss is all about, then seems it should be in there.
Why should it be in there when the state already have statutes regarding racial profiling?




I completely agree that a judge would interpret "reasonable suspicion" in this context very narrowly. A situation like human smuggling is just about the only situation I can imagine that would survive judicial scrutiny. You and those who support your position claim that looking Mexican or speaking Spanish would not be enough, but the problem with this logic, however, is that it's hard to see how these decisions will be subjected to judicial review. The reason there is extensive case law interpreting what "reasonable suspicion" means is because defense attorneys routinely move to suppress any evidence procured by way of an illegal stop or frisk, at which point the police must articulate the basis of their reasonable suspicion. If they can't do so to the judge's satisfaction, the evidence is suppressed and the charges are often dismissed. Police quickly learn to follow the rules if they want their charges to stick.

In the immigration context, however, there is no evidence to suppress. Defense attorneys will not have an obvious mechanism for contesting the reasonability of the request for documentation. I can see an occasional civil rights complaint filed by the ACLU or a similar group, but I don't see what circumstances would lead to any kind of routine judicial review of these decisions. The police will largely be on the honor system.

And that's why this law is so problematic to me. It's a recipe for police abuse and for unchecked racial profiling. And even if the police generally do a good job of controlling themselves, the mere hint of such abuse will only drive the undocumented community farther underground.

But that's just my opinion.[/QUOTE]

I think you have failed to realize that this is a misdemeanor just like any other misdemeanor.

This law doesn't give the Arizona courts Immigration Court powers.
These individuals still have to be processed through Immigration Courts through Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in order to be deported.

So, while you finally made a portion of a post that makes sense (see above) in the end, I dont see where defense attorneys will not have the same ability to make a motion to suppress based off of of an unlawful detention without proper reasonable suspicion.



Being brown is not enough reason to stop someone, and the courts will prove this.
 
Im sorry, the word Brown and English or Spanish aren't in there like you said.

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 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), 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.

I think you have failed to realize that this is a misdemeanor just like any other misdemeanor.

This law doesn't give the Arizona courts Immigration Court powers.

My discussion is not about what powers lie with the Arizona courts here, but what I see as problematic with the new law.
 
Haha you obviously don't live in a border state because the Bush administration never enforced immigration laws either, well if they attempted to, they did a terrible job.

Quick...ask me if I think Bush did a good job of this...

I get it...I get it...we cant do the job...we didnt know it was so hard...its all Bush...its not our fault...waaaah...****ing waaaah. This administration is pathetic. Simply pathetic.

What the hell did he get hired for if not to do a difficult job?
 
This isn't really a democrat republican or liberal conservative issue. Both parties are guilty of tossing the salad of illegals and those who aid and harbor them. Yeah pro-illegals on both sides are lying their ass off about Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law that allows cops to check the legal status of someone they pull over for some other offense. If McCain wasn't Facing reelection he would have have been tossing Calderon's salad just like Obama. Heck his tongue probably would have went in deeper than Obama's tongue when tossing that salad seeing how he tried to make it seem like he was friendlier to illegals than Obama was.

You will never hear me defend Bush on immigration. The simple fact of the matter is the nation hired the democrats to LEAD...and to do the job. Now they are refusing to act even when the state of Arizona arrests proven documented illegal immigrants. Instead of going...hell yeah Arizona...thats a good start...we are on board, they call the law racist even though these ****ing morons admit publicly they havent even bothered to read the legislation.. Lets let that sink in again...the PRESIDENT....his appointed ATTORNEY GENERAL...and his head of homeland security cry racism about a law they NEVER EVEN READ.

What the hell...if they can pass a 2 trillion dollar health care law without reading it...whats a 10 pager...
 
For the love of ****ing hell people, reading the thread.0

According to the new law, it most certainly is, right? The police are given a fairly wide latitude here, and I certainly saw nothing in the law that put any limit whatsoever on 'reasonable suspicion'.

Yes, but the police officer does not stop me and ask for my immigration papers simply because he suspects I am hispanic. Under Arizona's law, I see nothing that prevents them from profiling, which is why I asked if you could show me specifically where it does so.

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.

Well defined? Then what is the exact definition? There is no room for it to be interpreted?

"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."

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.

But that's just my opinion.

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.
 
Last edited:
Quick...ask me if I think Bush did a good job of this...

I get it...I get it...we cant do the job...we didnt know it was so hard...its all Bush...its not our fault...waaaah...****ing waaaah. This administration is pathetic. Simply pathetic.

What the hell did he get hired for if not to do a difficult job?

You should start taking posts in the cotnext they are written in (and not just make irrelevant posts).
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom