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 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 95

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

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-12-11 @ 12:32 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    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.

  2. #82
    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 Caine View Post
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    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 by Singularity; 05-23-10 at 06:43 PM.

  3. #83
    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
    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.
    "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.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

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

    All of the reasons.

  5. #85
    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 Caine View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    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.

  6. #86
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,717

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pro-bipartisan View Post
    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?

  7. #87
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,717

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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...

  8. #88
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,717

    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?
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    Supreme court has already ruled unanimously on the constitutionality of 'profiling' mexicans

  9. #89
    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?

    For the love of ****ing hell people, reading the thread.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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.
    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.
    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?
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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.

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-12-11 @ 12:32 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    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).

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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