• 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
It is for ID in any State.... by any cop.... on any day.


As a police officer, You have no clue what you are talking about.

I can A S K anyone for their ID.
 
As a police officer, You have no clue what you are talking about.

I can A S K anyone for their ID.

OK, a cop can ask, but you don't have to comply unless said cop presents "reasonable cause" to be asking..... this is basic Constitutional law.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
OK, a cop can ask, but you don't have to comply unless said cop presents "reasonable cause" to be asking..... this is basic Constitutional law.
Why do you think Ive been bolding and underlining the word ASK?
At any time have I stated that the individual is required to comply?
 
Why do you think Ive been bolding and underlining the word ASK?
At any time have I stated that the individual is required to comply?

I suppose not, but from the context of your posts it looked like you were saying that the law allowed cops to just stop anyone on the street for no reason.... and they can once or twice. Then they are in court for harassment.
 
I suppose not, but from the context of your posts it looked like you were saying that the law allowed cops to just stop anyone on the street for no reason.... and they can once or twice. Then they are in court for harassment.

I directly stated, and in parenthesis explained, that an officer can ask anyone to stop and talk to him at any time and that they are under no obligation to do so unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, in the process of committing, or has been involved in the commission of a crime or violation of state law.
 
I directly stated, and in parenthesis explained, that an officer can ask anyone to stop and talk to him at any time and that they are under no obligation to do so unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, in the process of committing, or has been involved in the commission of a crime or violation of state law.

Missed it......
 
correct me if I am wrong, [and I'm sure you will] but I thought the police, after say a stopsign violation stop, only determined if subject has a operators lic, and/or green card. The officer then turned subject over to ICE for further investigation, if no lic, or no green card
 
Last edited:
correct me if I am wrong, [and I'm sure you will] but I thought the police, after say a stopsign violation stop, only determined if subject has a operators lic, and/or green card. The officer then turned subject over to ICE for further investigation.

Under this law they can investigate for themselves.
 
Then why does ICE say they may not process illegals turned over by police?
 
Then why does ICE say they may not process illegals turned over by police?


Only ICE has the authority to deport them.

This law isnt about deportation.

This law makes it a misdemeanor to be in the state illegally.

So no different from an assault charge, or a DWI.
 
So why all the teeth gnashing if nothing happens to them? I'm starting to sound like my granddaughter with all the questions.
 
So why all the teeth gnashing if nothing happens to them? I'm starting to sound like my granddaughter with all the questions.


Im not the person you should be asking that question.

But I can only guess that the oppositions position is they are afraid that people will be stopped by police just because they are hispanic and start trying to verify their legal status.

Problem is, the opposition fails to read and understand the law.

An officer has to have already established a lawful contact, via reasonable suspicion of another crime, or consentual contact.. THEN reasonable suspicion of that individuals legal status here can be obtained via whatever sort of information they obtained from that original contact. THEN a check with federal immigration or (eventually) a local database of verified illegal immigrants (because law enforcement typically deal with the same people numerous times). Once probable cause that they are not here legally is established, THEN the arrest can be made.
 
Im not the person you should be asking that question.

But I can only guess that the oppositions position is they are afraid that people will be stopped by police just because they are hispanic and start trying to verify their legal status.

Problem is, the opposition fails to read and understand the law.

An officer has to have already established a lawful contact, via reasonable suspicion of another crime, or consentual contact.. THEN reasonable suspicion of that individuals legal status here can be obtained via whatever sort of information they obtained from that original contact. THEN a check with federal immigration or (eventually) a local database of verified illegal immigrants (because law enforcement typically deal with the same people numerous times). Once probable cause that they are not here legally is established, THEN the arrest can be made.

I read the law, and I didn't see where your summation is correct - specifically this part in bold: "...already established a lawful contact, via reasonable suspicion of another crime, or consentual contact.. THEN reasonable suspicion of that individuals legal status here can be obtained via whatever sort of information they obtained from that original contact."

From what the law says, the officer can make "lawful contact", and a "reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person". It says nothing about suspicion of another crime or anything like that. Basically, the officers can ask every hispanic individual for proof of their immigration status, right? I certainly see nothing that excludes them from doing so in this law.
 
I haven't been paying that much attention to the hype over this new law, but it seems to me that much of it is uninformed or intentionally misleading.

I read the document: Link to .pdf of the law, will need a reader for .pdf files.

After reading part of it, so far I can't really see any issue with it, or why it is a bad thing.

Perhaps I simply cannot parse the legalese to understand the points of contention, but....

Anyway, on to the poll.

Why do you think there is a negative response to the new Arizona Immigration law?
Its REALLY not that complicated. Democrats are opposed to ANY efforts to enforce the immigration laws. Democrat politicians want to use this to stir up racism charges-their standard campaign ploy.

This has nothing to DO with the Arizona law...for heavens sake...a month after they had bitched, moaned, whined cried, gone on TV calling the supporters racists, Obama, Holder, Napolitano, and virtually every other administration supporter ADMITTED on camera they hadnt even READ the legislation.

Nah...pure hate politics...thats ALL this is about.
 
Its REALLY not that complicated. Democrats are opposed to ANY efforts to enforce the immigration laws. Democrat politicians want to use this to stir up racism charges-their standard campaign ploy.

This has nothing to DO with the Arizona law...for heavens sake...a month after they had bitched, moaned, whined cried, gone on TV calling the supporters racists, Obama, Holder, Napolitano, and virtually every other administration supporter ADMITTED on camera they hadnt even READ the legislation.

Nah...pure hate politics...thats ALL this is about.

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.
 
Its REALLY not that complicated. Democrats are opposed to ANY efforts to enforce the immigration laws. Democrat politicians want to use this to stir up racism charges-their standard campaign ploy.

This has nothing to DO with the Arizona law...for heavens sake...a month after they had bitched, moaned, whined cried, gone on TV calling the supporters racists, Obama, Holder, Napolitano, and virtually every other administration supporter ADMITTED on camera they hadnt even READ the legislation.

Nah...pure hate politics...thats ALL this is about.
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.
 
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.

They threw money at it do nothing in order to make it look like they were doing something about it. Bush basically put on the national guard on the border to basically do what the minutemen were already doing for free. Which is put up fence and call the border guards anytime they see someone illegally crossing and no authority to arrest,detain or prevent illegal crossing.
 
I read the law, and I didn't see where your summation is correct - specifically this part in bold: "...already established a lawful contact, via reasonable suspicion of another crime, or consentual contact.. THEN reasonable suspicion of that individuals legal status here can be obtained via whatever sort of information they obtained from that original contact."

From what the law says, the officer can make "lawful contact", and a "reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person". It says nothing about suspicion of another crime or anything like that. Basically, the officers can ask every hispanic individual for proof of their immigration status, right? I certainly see nothing that excludes them from doing so in this law.

No, there is nothing to keep them from doing this under this law.

There is also nothing that says their refusal to answer the questions = reasonable suspicion.

Just like if a cop tries to get you to stop and talk to him when he has no reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. A cop can come up and ask random people questions all day long. You are under no obligation to speak with him unless he has reasonable suspicion you were involved in a crime via a BOLO description that you fit and says you were previously involved in some sort of criminal activity and in the area. If he has reasonable suspicion, then were fit what is an in between place between being completely free to leave, and being in "investigative detention".

Being brown and not speaking english is not enough reasonable suspicion to place someone in investigative detention.
 
No, there is nothing to keep them from doing this under this law.

There is also nothing that says their refusal to answer the questions = reasonable suspicion.

Just like if a cop tries to get you to stop and talk to him when he has no reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. A cop can come up and ask random people questions all day long. You are under no obligation to speak with him unless he has reasonable suspicion you were involved in a crime via a BOLO description that you fit and says you were previously involved in some sort of criminal activity and in the area. If he has reasonable suspicion, then were fit what is an in between place between being completely free to leave, and being in "investigative detention".

Being brown and not speaking english is not enough reasonable suspicion to place someone in investigative detention.

What about when Spanish people are stacked on top of each other in the back of a pick-up truck?
 
What about when Spanish people are stacked on top of each other in the back of a pick-up truck?

The effective way to go would be to find out WHY they are stacked on top of each other in the back of a pickup-truck. And work from there......
 
The effective way to go would be to find out WHY they are stacked on top of each other in the back of a pickup-truck. And work from there......

So police should be able to ask questions and talk to those people right?
 
Being brown and not speaking english is not enough reasonable suspicion to place someone in investigative detention.

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'. 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.

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.
 
So police should be able to ask questions and talk to those people right?


It all depends upon the situation. Every situation is different and there is no "This is how "this" is done...." attitude.

This is why we have judges, there is never ONE answer to an action police officers make. Answers and other information determine the outcome and next decision/question made by police.


Its just sad that they don't get more respect for what they do.
 
It all depends upon the situation. Every situation is different and there is no "This is how "this" is done...." attitude.

This is why we have judges, there is never ONE answer to an action police officers make. Answers and other information determine the outcome and next decision/question made by police.


Its just sad that they don't get more respect for what they do.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom