Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

Wait, you seem to be taking the word "issuance" to mean something about detainment.

Let me do it:

IF the entity requires proof of legal status prior to issuance [of the identification], any federal, state, or local issued government identification [is valid]

Entity refers to the entity that issues the document. Hence the word issuance.
Remember the context. It's a list of 4 documents that the detaining officer will accept as proof of legal status.

Noteworthy is the previously-linked statement by the Arizona Police Training Board fellow that agrees with me instead of you.

Deuce said:

The statement you quoted is still accurate.

Click to expand...

I dont think this bill poses any dangers to the rights of American citizens. So I have zero problems with this bill.
This bill is no different than, the fed bills.

Just keep in mind that we are talking about ILLEGAL aliens.

You completely fail to undestand that little thingy.

ric27 said:

I dont think this bill poses any dangers to the rights of American citizens. So I have zero problems with this bill.
This bill is no different than, the fed bills.

Just keep in mind that we are talking about ILLEGAL aliens.

You completely fail to undestand that little thingy.

Click to expand...

No, that part I get entirely. It's the being "more happy because Obama and the left are freaking out" that is the partisan part.

To clarify:
Supporting the bill: Not partisan.
Supporting the bill because liberals oppose it: Partisan.

Deuce said:

It's not "fear," it's "not wanting to be detained or for other innocent people to be detained."

Click to expand...

Then you should worry about every law at every given time because that is always a potential problem with any law.

Your "worry" could not be more general.

texmaster said:

Then you should worry about every law at every given time because that is always a potential problem with any law.

Your "worry" could not be more general.

Click to expand...

As I've already stated, I'd be comfortable with this law if it referred to "probable cause" instead of "reasonable suspicion" as well as "lawful detainment" instead of "lawful stop." I think that was pretty specific, but your combination of absolutism and taking individual posts of mine out of context of the six-page discussion seems to be leading you astray.

I'll expand on my previously-stated views:
The premise of the law isn't the problem, it's the ambiguity. "Reasonable suspicion" combined with "lawful detention" gives too much leeway to the government for my liking. When it comes to civil liberties, I prefer to err on the side of the people rather than the government. Strange how I'm the one arguing for restricted government power and you're arguing for the stronger, wouldn't you say?

Deuce said:

As I've already stated, I'd be comfortable with this law if it referred to "probable cause" instead of "reasonable suspicion" as well as "lawful detainment" instead of "lawful stop." I think that was pretty specific, but your combination of absolutism and taking individual posts of mine out of context of the six-page discussion seems to be leading you astray.
I'll expand on my previously-stated views:
The premise of the law isn't the problem, it's the ambiguity. "Reasonable suspicion" combined with "lawful detention" gives too much leeway to the government for my liking. When it comes to civil liberties, I prefer to err on the side of the people rather than the government. Strange how I'm the one arguing for restricted government power and you're arguing for the stronger, wouldn't you say?

Click to expand...

LOL You read your talking points well. I've found this parsing in quite a few places where liberals hang out.

Actually I'd say you don't understand the defintion of the wording you are trying in vain to diagnose.

And its not giving the government more leeway either since it is the same wording in the federal law or did you not know that as well?

And you aren't arguing for restricting government law. If you really believe that you need to re-read the defintions of that wording.

Lets look to some experts on what reasonable suspicion actually means:

First, from “Jack Dunphy,” (pseudonym) a police officer with the LAPD:

How will the police, ask the critics, determine what is “reasonable suspicion” to believe someone might be an illegal immigrant? On this I can speak from long experience, as I have spent a good part of my police career working in neighborhoods of Los Angeles where illegal immigrants can be found in abundance (there are many such neighborhoods here).

As police officers develop on the job they learn to recognize certain cultural patterns, perhaps the most important of which are those displayed by men who have spent time in prison. Such men almost invariably adopt manners of dress, speech, and behavior that a seasoned police officer can recognize instantly — and he had better, if he wants to end his day in the same condition he started it.

Even if you were to dress an ex-con in a Brooks Brothers suit, give him a hundred-dollar haircut, and place him among a group of men similarly dressed and coiffed, any cop who had been around a while would have no trouble at all picking him out of the crowd.

This is not to equate illegal immigrants with ex-convicts, but the concept of noticing cultural cues nonetheless applies. Regardless of a given person’s ethnicity, there are mannerisms and behaviors that are more common on one side of our southern border than the other, and the degree to which a person displays these mannerisms and behaviors offers the careful observer an idea of which side of that border the person is from and how long it has been since he crossed it.

Next, an answer from Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association:

The second issue: What does “reasonable suspicion” mean to a police officer?

The law has been clarified to state that race, color or national origin cannot be considered “except to the extent permitted” by the U.S. and state constitutions.

Spencer said reasonable suspicion could include an admission of being in the country illegally, having fake identification, having foreign identification without a visa or U.S. immigration documentation, or having no identification.

So What Constitutes “Reasonable Suspicion” for Arizona Police Officers Enforcing SB1070? « The West Coast Outpost

Now explain to us how that is unreasonable? Do you not trust the police?

Now to Lawful stop:

“stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”



In response to critics, Arizona tweaks new immigration law | Washington Examiner

Again, what is wrong with this wording SPECIFICALLY? I don't care about your "feelings" on the wording, I want specific examples of why your terminology will not hurt the ability for officers to do the job this law specifies.

Deuce said:

Seems like it would be fairly easy to track the cases where the citizenship-checking is done to see whether it is applied disproportionately to hispanics.

Click to expand...

Of course its going to APPEAR disproportionately aimed at hispanics.

Hispanics make up roughly 80% of the illegal immigrants in this country. This number is even higher in border states.

The law is aimed at catching illegal immigrants, meaning that it allows officers to take further actions in instances that would give one reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant.

When you combine these together, common sense says the law is going to be disproportionatly used against hispanic people because hispanic people are disproporationately greater in number within the illegal immigrant population which happens to be the population this is going to be targeting.

This does not mean there is any proof of racial profiling. It is simply a side affect of the law when mixed with reality. For example, with the ID's, lets say 100 people are pulled over. 10 of those people don't have ID's. 1 ends up being that they're driving on a restrict liscense, 1 is an illegal asian immigrant, and 8 are illegal hispanic immigrants. Suddenly some, based on your reasoning above, would say that shows racial profiling because "it targetted a disproportionate number of hispanics" but in reality it was not racial profiling, it was simply that a disproportionate amount of hispanics made up the population that didn't have ID.

Deuce said:

So you admit that race will be a factor in determining the "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal? Despite the law supposedly ruling that out?

Click to expand...

No, race isn't a factor, however disproportionate enforcement upon a particular race does not necessarily equal profiling.

Deuce said:

You should ask ICE about that. I'm not in law enforcement. If I had to guess, I'd say they probably work off of people with fake/stolen SSNs, or are unable to provide a SSN, lack a driver's license/other form of ID, don't file a tax return despite appearing to have income, or whatever.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Deuce said:

As I've already stated, I'd be comfortable with this law if it referred to "probable cause" instead of "reasonable suspicion" as well as "lawful detainment" instead of "lawful stop." I think that was pretty specific, but your combination of absolutism and taking individual posts of mine out of context of the six-page discussion seems to be leading you astray.

Click to expand...

So you'd be fine with this law, if it required far more certainty then other laws similar to it.

For example, is asking for proof of citizenship truly any more of an action than frisking someone for a firearm?

Probable Cause is something that should be needed to arrest someone. You can not arrest someone under this law because they don't have a driver's liscense or other sort of issues. You can however investigate further, which is the whole purpose of reasonable suspicion. You're basically saying "I dislike this law and what it does, so I think it should have a higher burden of proof then is reguarly required for the type of action that its doing".

It shows its not about the law for you, its about the cause and your disagreement with that.

If the law results in racial profiling, then that means the law was never followed property as it clearly makes racial profiling illegal.

The attorney general or county
29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
30 color or national origin.

Click to expand...

You can read the whole bill here http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

It's going to be obvious that more Latinos will be arrested when this law takes effect because the majority of illegal immigrants are Latino. It would be a dishonest and deceitful attempt to say the law is racial profiling because more Latinos have been arrested.

Zyphlin said:

So you'd be fine with this law, if it required far more certainty then other laws similar to it.

For example, is asking for proof of citizenship truly any more of an action than frisking someone for a firearm?

Probable Cause is something that should be needed to arrest someone. You can not arrest someone under this law because they don't have a driver's liscense or other sort of issues. You can however investigate further, which is the whole purpose of reasonable suspicion. You're basically saying "I dislike this law and what it does, so I think it should have a higher burden of proof then is reguarly required for the type of action that its doing".

It shows its not about the law for you, its about the cause and your disagreement with that.

Click to expand...

Yes, I dislike the idea of legal citizens being detained for not carrying a passport. I'm sorry if my views on civil liberties offends you. The frisking for a hand gun thing is not equivalent. My citizenship status isn't a potential danger to the officer.
And despite what MrV and Tex have been saying, no, not all driver's licenses will pass the test.

Can you cite other situations where I can be detained for not having documentation on me while walking down the street or sitting in my own front yard? Is reasonable suspicion the level there? And since when is "well we wrote other laws this way" good enough reason to do anything?

Deuce said:

Yes, I dislike the idea of legal citizens being detained for not carrying a passport. I'm sorry if my views on civil liberties offends you. The frisking for a hand gun thing is not equivalent. My citizenship status isn't a potential danger to the officer.
And despite what MrV and Tex have been saying, no, not all driver's licenses will pass the test.

Can you cite other situations where I can be detained for not having documentation on me while walking down the street or sitting in my own front yard? Is reasonable suspicion the level there? And since when is "well we wrote other laws this way" good enough reason to do anything?

Click to expand...

Seems you are alone in this thread and to be fair, I'm gonna help you out

This is what deuce is worried about....

MrVicchio said:

FOXNews.com - Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

So they realize they'll probably lose the first suit and are laying the groundwork for the 2nd.

Click to expand...

I would love to be in the courtroom for this suit.

The federal law says it is OK to ask anybody at any time for proof of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that was OK, so on what grounds would the feds sue the state when the state law does not conflict with the fed law? Are they going to say that there was no profiling in the state law when it is ok in the fed law so they are not compatable?

I want to see that one.

Deuce said:

Can you cite other situations where I can be detained for not having documentation on me while walking down the street or sitting in my own front yard?

Click to expand...

Until you want to discuss this without the hyperbole or over exaggeration then you can proceed to have a conversation with yourself. Seeing how this long doesn't allow you to be detained for not having documentation simply for walking down the street or sitting in your front yard I'm not dealing with your moronic hypothetical.

ric27 said:

Seems you are alone in this thread and to be fair, I'm gonna help you out

This is what deuce is worried about....

Click to expand...

And its idiotic for him to be worried about that.

You need reasonable suspicion to be able to be asked for proof of citizenship.

Simply going down the street on a bicycle isn't reasonable suspicion.

Generally this will occur upon finding out information during the investigation of another potential crime, such as speeding. At which point, if there's reasonable suspision to believe another crime is being commited, IE entering the country illegally, an officer may further investigate. If there's evidence to suggest that the crime was commited you can be arrested while further investigation happens.

If I'm pulled over for a traffic stop because I'm speeding, that's fine. If then in that traffic stop they smell marijuana and notice rolling papers on the seat they can search my car. If they find marijuana then they can arrest me and I'll have a chance to defend myself in court.

If you're pulled over for a traffic stop because you're speeding, that's fine. If then in that traffic stop you can't provide a legal drivers license the officer can ask for proof of citizenship. If you can't provide that then they can arrest you and you'll have a chance to defend yourself in court.

In the first case if somehow the individual had a lisense for medical marijuana but didn't have it on him at the time, he could produce it later for the court and attempt to get off that way.

Likewise, in the second case, if the individual did have proof of citizenship and simply failed to have it with him at the time, he could produce it later for the court and attempt to get off that way.

Being in this country illegally is a crime. Having probable cause to believe you've commited that crime warrants detention. The ability to investigate to find that probable cause is reasonable suspicion.

The law is known, its not hidden, its not secret. If you don't carry identification of some kind on you in Arizona expect there to be potentially a problem and an inconvience if you're breaking the law and get caught because you may be asked for it. That's the risk you take in not having it on you. However if you're honestly a citizen here all it will amount to is an inconvience as you'll be able to show and prove soon enough, or more they'll be unable to prove, that you're a U.S. citizen once you are able to produce the paperwork.

Zyphlin said:

Until you want to discuss this without the hyperbole or over exaggeration then you can proceed to have a conversation with yourself. Seeing how this long doesn't allow you to be detained for not having documentation simply for walking down the street or sitting in your front yard I'm not dealing with your moronic hypothetical.

Click to expand...

Sorry, here I was assuming you'd actually read the last six pages. Instead of walking down the street, read it as "walking down the street and then I jaywalk."

I have read the other pages, nothing in it indicated you meant some kind of crime was being commited. You know, those ever pervasive "sitting in ones front yards" rule violations and of course when I talk about jaywalking I don't say jaywalking but "walking down the street".

I'm unsure Jaywalking would even apply to this law as nothing occurs in a routine jaywalking charge to my knowledge that would provide reasonable suspicion. Its not like a traffic stop where you ask for ID to my knowledge (perhaps an officer could inform us. What with never having been stopped for it I don't have any knowledge of it).

Even so...if it is routine for the cops to ask for ID while jaywalking then again. Person A seems to be commiting a crime (jaywalking) giving cops reason to stop them, cops ask for ID as is routine (in this scenario) and finds he doesn't have one, this gives reasonable suspicion that the person may not be here legally giving office the ability to further investigate for asking for proof of citizenship. If none is able to be provided he can be detained until an investigation and proper legal action can be taken. I see nothing wrong with this scenario. Someone violates the law, routine proceedure is followed, routine procedure procudes situation where its reasonable to assume an illegal action has taken place, upon further investigation probable cause is found, person is detained.

Stop -> Something unusual that points to a potential crime -> Reasonable Suspicion -> Evidence Found -> probable cause -> detention.

This is a standard forumula for law enforcement. Simply because you dislike the law in this particular case doens't make it invalid.

At what point did I ever argue that the law was invalid?

Zyphlin said:

And its idiotic for him to be worried about that.

Click to expand...

Of course it is for him

There has to be reasonable suspicion the person is illegal that is made DURING an otherwise lawful police contact. The way the law is written, "racial profiling" is specifically forbidden.

For instance, if a cop sees a dude standing in front of Price Smart or Howm Depot and goes "that guy LOOKS illegal, I'll check him out"...not to be, unless, the cop decides to enforce loitering laws then, he'll have a green light

Deuce said:

At what point did I ever argue that the law was invalid?

Click to expand...

My apologizes. Not invalid. Just worthy of having a higher standard than the same procedures being enforced for other instances where a reasonable suspicion of a violation of another law occurs in the process of investigating or taking action in regards to an illegal act.

Zyphlin said:

My apologizes. Not invalid. Just worthy of having a higher standard than the same procedures being enforced for other instances where a reasonable suspicion of a violation of another law occurs in the process of investigating or taking action in regards to an illegal act.

Click to expand...

Weird how sometimes people hold a different opinion than you do, isn't it? I prefer less ambiguity and stricter standards in law enforcement. It never occured to me that this opinion is somehow insulting to people, but the way this thread is going you might conclude that it is.

Zyphlin said:

Until you want to discuss this without the hyperbole or over exaggeration then you can proceed to have a conversation with yourself. Seeing how this long doesn't allow you to be detained for not having documentation simply for walking down the street or sitting in your front yard I'm not dealing with your moronic hypothetical.

Click to expand...

But without hyperbole or exaggeration, Deuce may not be able to post anymore!!

Nope, your opinion when applied completely disproportaintly, never really starting threads concernings the leagues of ambiguity already in the vast majority of our law but railing against this one constantly mixed with your attempts to act like this is some over arching issue for you rather than one specific about this law due to your feelings about this law and what this laws purposes for is what's rather insulting.

Reasonable Suspicion is not more "ambiguous" here then it is in the plethora of other places in the law that its used, yet prior to this I haven't seen you making threads or jumping into threads complaining about its ambiguity. Since this has happened I've not seen you make this argument about any other uses of reasonable suspicion, save for with this law. And even Probable Cause is in and of itself an ambiguous tandard, just like reasonable suspicion, that does not have strict and definitive guidelines of what exactly fits it.

What's insulting is your dishonest attempt of portraying that this for you is an issue of ambiguity when its clear as day the issue is your dislike for a law aimed at curtailing illegal immigration despite it using existing law and existing legal standards as the basis for it.

I don't care when people hold a different opinion then me, I just have issues when they piss on my leg and tell me its raining which is what your attempted pleas of "civil liberties" is when one views the inconstistancies of your vigor at speaking in the defense of such.

Perhaps ambiguity is not a good choice of words. Stricter standard, on the other hand, is certainly applicable. And here again, you act insulted for some reason, saying that I'm "pissing on your leg and calling it rain."

I gave my opinion and never suggested that others must share it. I don't particularly care what you think about it. You, on the other hand, are acting as if your opinion is the only valid one, and that anybody who thinks differently must be some sort of bad person.

I have no problem with curtailing illegal immigration, but you're falling back on the standard conservative absolutism: If you oppose this law you're in favor of illegal immigration! Really? You don't think maybe there's something in between?

Yes, ambiguity wasn't a good choice of words, and it was what I was basing my argument on. Don't get pissy when I respond to the words YOU ACTUALLY SAY.

Yes, you're pissing on my leg and calling it rain. That's what's insulting, not your opinion. I don't give a damn if you have an opinion other than me. What I do give a damn about is when you try to pretty up your opinion as "Defending Civil Rights" when its damn well apparent by your actions in this thread, and others, and your lack of action regarding the exact same standard being used in dozens upon dozens of laws, that its nothing to do with "defending civil rights" and everything to do with "attacking this law because I dislike it and dislike what its trying to do". If it was honestly about Civil Liberties the "ambiguity" could've caused you would not be so narrowly focused on a singular, solitary law that is using it when there's a multitude of them that are being used. Your actions show your supposed reasoning to be absolutely dishonest, attempting to prop up the reasons for why you're attacking this law behind something you view as more "noble" and harder to attack instead of being honest and transparent about your displeasure with THIS law and the application of legal standards simply on THIS law and that its nothing to do with "civil liberties" this is infringing upon but your disagreement with the purpose of THIS LAW.

Those legal standards didn't magically create themselves for this law. The ambiguity has been there for quite a long time. Your attempts at acting like this is anything to do with Civil Liberties and some broad reaching thing with you when you only bitch and complain about it with regards to this law is insultingly dishonest and insulting to the intelligence of everyone discussing it with you.

Not your opinion, your opinion...poorly put across by making statements that suggest the law does something it doesn't while backpedaling and going "Well I mean, it should be obvious that i MEANT to say doing illegal activity while sitting on your front lawn, I mean really, can't you read minds? I shouldn't have to actually, you know, TYPE things"...is something I disagree with but I'm not insulted by. Your apparent faux "CIVIL LIBERTIES" rally cry is what is insulting.