• 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!

Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

So If Im mexican I should deal with having to possibly prove my citizenship everywhere I go possibly. Even if I were legal. At the risk of ending up detained for not having papers?

I dont care about catching illegals that much. Its the legals that may suffer due to this that bothers me.

Your question assumes the police have nothing more to do than to wait for a dark skinned latino to go by and ask for his papers.

I can assure you they have other things to do and they will be doing them. This would just let them ask the question and do something about it if they got the answer that the person was not in the country legally.
 
Actually, the ability of racist Arizona cops to do THIS was struck down. A trucker was stopped in Arizona, and had his driver's license in order. However, he was not carrying his birth certificate with him, so he was thrown in jail. Who the hell carries their birth certificates with them at all times?

That trucker is an AMERICAN CITIZEN, who was born in Fresno, California. What Arizonans want to do smacks of South African apartheid. I know I am not supposed to judge people by where they are from, but I can't help feeling that the majority of Arizonans who support that law, and most of them do, would have made outstanding German citizens in the 1930's. Anyways, his rights were clearly violated. When a state law enables violations like this to happen, then it is not only the right of the Federal government to step in, but the duty of the Feds to step in.

I would say this trucker has a hell of a law suit.
 
Good ruling. The thing is, that if they checked the legal status of everyone, I'd be fine with this law. But the whole reasonable suspicion thing, is bull. It might as well say if you catch any person who looks latino check them to see if they are legal.

The checking of everybody is done when you apply for a drivers license or an ID card, a legal state issued card, that way the police only have to deal with people that do not have that.

If that means the majority of the people in their area are latino that don't have that card, then they should go ahead and check their status.

So now are you OK wiuth the law since everybody IS check for legal status, just not on the street?
 
Good ruling. The thing is, that if they checked the legal status of everyone, I'd be fine with this law. But the whole reasonable suspicion thing, is bull. It might as well say if you catch any person who looks latino check them to see if they are legal.

Oh jesus christ. Go do some research.

Reasonable Suspicion is NOTHING NEW. Every time you are pulled over by the police on the roadways, or temporarily detained by the police elsewhere, the standard needed for them to have the authority to detain you is...... REASONABLE SUSPICION!

This standard is nothing new to those who actually enforce the law. Its these god damned armchair legal scholars who don't know jack about law enforcement/legal terminology that freak the **** out and make up their own idea of what a term means.

So, if you are a person who is against this based upon the phrase, "reasonable suspicion"... here is a hint, go actually learn what the hell that means, and where/when it is used, and go surprise yourself. Don't make **** up as you go along....

ARRRGGG!!!
 
I don't see how anyone can honestly say that the AZ law won't lead to racial profiling, considering where AZ is geographically located and that illegals tend to be hispanic.

I would actually find it to be more honest and realistic if someone just came out and said, "We SHOULD be profiling hispanics to see if they are legal." I mean, it would be unPC, but at least that's the honest truth of what the law makers are beating around the bush about. But no, we're just going to pretend that it's an innocent law for the security of America and we're just going to catch people as they commit other crimes.

The level of bull****ting here is just off the scale. I agree that enforcement of the law should be suspended until the Fed case goes through.

So...... because you can make assumptions as to what law enforcement MIGHT do, even if they are violating state and federal law by doing so, then that makes a law bad?
 
Don't you realize that one can commit a crime without being in a car.

If they have committed a crime, then they go to jail.
If they go to jail, they fall under the 287g program, authorized/controlled by ........................................... THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
 
Oh jesus christ. Go do some research.

Reasonable Suspicion is NOTHING NEW. Every time you are pulled over by the police on the roadways, or temporarily detained by the police elsewhere, the standard needed for them to have the authority to detain you is...... REASONABLE SUSPICION!

This standard is nothing new to those who actually enforce the law. Its these god damned armchair legal scholars who don't know jack about law enforcement/legal terminology that freak the **** out and make up their own idea of what a term means.

So, if you are a person who is against this based upon the phrase, "reasonable suspicion"... here is a hint, go actually learn what the hell that means, and where/when it is used, and go surprise yourself. Don't make **** up as you go along....

ARRRGGG!!!

I know what reasonable suspicion means, but answer me this. What would be reasonable suspicion for being an illegal alien, how does one look like they are here illegally?
 
Last edited:
....shouldn't Police officers have more important things to do rather than bring in Jorge because he doesn't have his papers?
Ahhh the old "more important things to do" argument I always hear from folks.

What would those more important things to do be?
Catch Murderers and Rapists of course!
But.... wait a minute.... thats not how it works.
Patrol Officers respond and do initial investigation on a felony. The rest is done by detectives, whose job it is to do the advanced investigation.
The vast majority of all rapes occur between two people who know each other, and usually indoors, usually with a phone call later from a sobbing female to 911 which sparks the investigation. Are police supposed to have a "spidey sense tingling" and go unlawfully kicking in doors to private residences and catching rapists? I think not.
What Patrol Officers deal with more often than not are dependant upon the area they work in. In inner city areas its responding to citizen calls for service, and working the problem areas of violent crime, keeping a presence. In suburban areas, its responding to citizen calls for service, enforcing traffic laws to keep aggressive driving suburbanites from killing each other, and driving around neighborhoods bored as **** trying to scare off potential burglars.

Jorge would usually fall into the citizen calls for service category, in that Jorge was either the male abusor in a Domestic Violence call, or the drunk asshole pissing on the building behind the 7/11, or something else of that type, maybe he was loitering on a corner in the inner city where folks are known to loiter for drug sale/purchase and an Officer decided to make contact with him, maybe do a field interview with him for those purposes. The fact is, there are about a billion reasons why Jorge could come into contact with the police, ZERO of them being, "cuz he wuz a damned mexi-can"

Get all that TV bull**** out of your heads, that is NOT even close to what policing really is.
 
I know what reasonable suspicion means, but answer me this. What would be reasonable suspicion for being an illegal alien, how does one look like they are here illegally?

WTF Do you mean "how does one look like".
It isn't about physical ****ing appearances. Or do you wish for it to be to support your preconceived idea that this is just racial profiling?

Why don't drop the ignorant ass loaded questions and respond in a way that makes me think you actually care about the exchange of ideas instead of just bickering.
 
WTF Do you mean "how does one look like".
It isn't about physical ****ing appearances. Or do you wish for it to be to support your preconceived idea that this is just racial profiling?

Why don't drop the ignorant ass loaded questions and respond in a way that makes me think you actually care about the exchange of ideas instead of just bickering.

Still didn't answer my question, what qualifies for reasonable suspicion for being an illegal alien?
 
That assumption is correct, the law still requires az police to enforce FEDERAL immigration statues of those they arrest, or those that are here illegally. It does not allow AZ to charge them with a crime of trespassing.

Thus.... This AZ law was created to supplement the 287g program that was already in place.

Do I think it was necessary? Not really. I don't see anything wrong with the law in itself. But my disagreement with the law has little to do with jumping up and down like a 9 year old who doesn't know **** yelling "RACISM RACISM RACISM"

My problem with the law is that it will make illegal immigrants less likely to report crimes to the authorities because they will then be investigated. This will make them very easy targets for LEGAL resident criminals to victimize them. And THAT is the only legitimate, in my opinion, reason why this law should be opposed.
 
Still didn't answer my question, what qualifies for reasonable suspicion for being an illegal alien?

The question is not directly answerable. It depends on a number of different articulatable facts. It isn't A +B +C = Reasonable Suspicion.

A + B + C = Probable Cause that an actual crime has been committed (A, B, and C being the specific elements of said crime). However, Reasonable suspicion has to take into account the totality of the circumstances, what the officers knows, what he knows from his experience, what he may know about this particular individual, how he came about this knowledge, etc. Such facts must be able to be explained before a judge to determine whether the temporary detention was reasonable, in a case where such a detention even occurred.

Reasonable Suspicion is not grounds to arrest someone and transport them to a jail. Re-read the original bill for what occurrs after said reasonable suspicion has been obtained.
 
Will you show where this is illegal? other than the 1070 law that was just castrated.

Sure, its a couple things.

First, the supremecy clause, which designates that federal law over rules state. Second, the SCOTUS has found that in a DIRECT sense, exercising rasonable suspicion based singularly on the facet of race is unconstitutional and thus illegal. Additionally you have U.S. v. Montero-Camargo which found that race can not be part of a broader group of reasonings either. The only time when its currently legal to use race is for searching for a specific suspect, such as when you KNOW that the perpetrator based on eye witness reports is white/black/hispanic/etc.
 
Judge Boltons brief does not say that AZ law enforcement cannot check immigration status, it says that they are not required to check. They may still check if they want to.

Lets ask this: If AZ law enforcement can't check to see who is legal, then who can? What government agency is authorized to "check".. How many of them do we have? How often, and under what circumstances do they "check" legal status?

Don't you all see what a mess this is?


Tim-
 
Actually, the ability of racist Arizona cops to do THIS was struck down. A trucker was stopped in Arizona, and had his driver's license in order. However, he was not carrying his birth certificate with him, so he was thrown in jail. Who the hell carries their birth certificates with them at all times?

There may be more to this story than even you know. Why are we supposed to believe some social networking site, and one guy's opinion about this? That doesn't seem like sound, and reasonable to me.

Look Dana, we have a huge problem in this country with illegal immigration. Just as with a plumbing problem, you stop the flow first, then fix the problem. Why are you opposed to that?


That trucker is an AMERICAN CITIZEN, who was born in Fresno, California. What Arizonans want to do smacks of South African apartheid. I know I am not supposed to judge people by where they are from, but I can't help feeling that the majority of Arizonans who support that law, and most of them do, would have made outstanding German citizens in the 1930's. Anyways, his rights were clearly violated. When a state law enables violations like this to happen, then it is not only the right of the Federal government to step in, but the duty of the Feds to step in.

Oh, so now we are all Nazi's if we want to control our borders eh? Way to go! Way to make yourself irrelevant in this discussion.


j-mac
 
Still didn't answer my question, what qualifies for reasonable suspicion for being an illegal alien?

There's no laundry list of specific things, just like you're not going to open a book to find "101 examples of definitive probable cause". It is a judgement call on the part of the officers, which is something done throughout this country on a daily basis in a plethora of other circumstnaces. It is not however carte blanche to do as they like as they need to be able to articulate the specific facts that gave them a reasoanble belief to superiors or a judge if necessary and a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" or something of the sort is not justification for reasonable suspicion.

Things that I think would probably make sense?

Someone pulled over for a traffic violation and not having a lisense. Its reasonable to suspect that someone whose doing that illegal act may not have the lisence due to other illegal activity.

Someone working in a business when its found the business did not file the proper tax paperwork for him. Again, reasonable to suspect the reason that would happen is due to other illegal activity occuring.

Someone found on a known drug route out of Mexico transporting drugs. Once more, reasonable to suspect that under such situations other illegal activity is occuring.
 
I know what reasonable suspicion means, but answer me this. What would be reasonable suspicion for being an illegal alien, how does one look like they are here illegally?

You mean, for example, being pulled over for a traffic violation and not having a driver's license or registration for the car? I don't know -- why don't you ask LEOs who have been doing this as a career. They say it isn't that difficult.
 
Sure, its a couple things.

First, the supremecy clause, which designates that federal law over rules state. Second, the SCOTUS has found that in a DIRECT sense, exercising rasonable suspicion based singularly on the facet of race is unconstitutional and thus illegal. Additionally you have U.S. v. Montero-Camargo which found that race can not be part of a broader group of reasonings either. The only time when its currently legal to use race is for searching for a specific suspect, such as when you KNOW that the perpetrator based on eye witness reports is white/black/hispanic/etc.

The law SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS this....

Also, as for supremecy, are you arguing that state governments have ZERO authority to enforce ANY federal law?

Also, the legislature of AZ was not passing immigration legislation, they were legislating the behavior of illegals already in the state.
 
Judge Boltons brief does not say that AZ law enforcement cannot check immigration status, it says that they are not required to check. They may still check if they want to.

Which is interesting because the AZ law didn't mandate checking either... Love the tizzy liberals are in over this law. it is like they LIKE illegal immigrants or something...
 
Dana,

Every day in this country there are abuses of the law and violations of it by both cops and citizens. Should we get rid of Traffic laws because there's a handful of cops in Alabama that decide to pull over a bunch of blacks cause htey're racist? Should we get rid of laws about noise complaints when its used to harass those living around an influencial individuals house? Should we not allow the police to collect evidence because some have stolen evidence before? Should we take all their guns, clubs, and tasers away because some have acted irresponsabily with it.

Its amazing how people when arguing the 2nd amendment and other things demand personal responsability, but the moment its something they dislike sure, blame the object and not the person.

Did that particular case have any time for actual legitimate action to be taken against it? A proper investigation? A case ruling on the legality of what he did under the law? If he had anything that qualified as reasonable suspicion? Hell, your BLOG by some random lady who just documents incidents she's been "told" about even knowledges the thing you spoke about occured BEFORE the law was even signed, so attributing it to that law is idiotic.

This idiotic writer of your blog continues to critique the ARIZONA law by talking about its "second" victim.....that was in ILLINOIS. I also highly am dubious of this womans claims of Mr. Lowe's claims as they simply don't make any rational legal sense from what I understand of the law in regards to what "probable cause" is.

Its disgusting, pure and simple disgusting, that you even insult those individuals that died in Africa to compare this in any way to Aparthied and nothing but a sick emotional ploy on your part that you're far better than Dana. The woman that wrote this, regardless of her pedigree, is a bafoon and parroting her line does not make you look good in the slightest.
 
I know what reasonable suspicion means, but answer me this. What would be reasonable suspicion for being an illegal alien, how does one look like they are here illegally?

Your Star,

You raise a good question. Implementation can be tricky. If one thinks in terms of probabilities, the principle of "reasonable suspicion" is lesser than "probable cause." The latter assumes that it is likely that something has occurred.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Terry v. Ohio ruling provided the operative definition:

The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate.

Were the issue of a person's status in the U.S. to be raised, the legal system would have to determine whether it was reasonable to raise such an issue "in light of the particular circumstances" involved.

Implementation of the principle, even as it is well-established, can be a complex issue, particularly when new legal ground is being broken, as the Arizona statute attempted to do. Prior to Judge Bolton's injunction, police agencies and district attorneys were studying that matter, among others. Implementation of the "reasonable suspicion" principle is far from a cut-and-dried, non-controversial issue. There is a lot of ambiguity and errors can be made. Bad implementation would properly lead to a dismissal of the related charges.

Excerpts from a news article concerning Maricopa County that touches on the complexity of that issue follow:

With the state’s new immigration law set to take effect at the end of this month, police agencies are receiving not only training materials but guidelines from the County Attorney's office as to what will make a case stick.

In the document cited by the news story, officers would have been required to provide an explanation "of the reasonable suspicion for questioning citizenship." Hence, a paper trail would have been established.

Finally, the judge's injunction concerned matters other than the "reasonable suspicion" principle, which is well-established, even if implementation can be complex. It was those other defects coupled with her view that the U.S. was "likely" to prevail with regard to those legal issues and that the failure to issue an injunction would have led to "irreparable harm" that was the basis of her decision to issue the injunction.
 
The law SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS this....

Also, as for supremecy, are you arguing that state governments have ZERO authority to enforce ANY federal law?

Also, the legislature of AZ was not passing immigration legislation, they were legislating the behavior of illegals already in the state.

I think you're confused...

I was stating its irrelevant to whether or not someone thinks the Arizona law makes racial profiling legal or not (which it doesn't), because based on the Surpremacy clause it wouldn't matter. FEDERALLY racial profiling in the instance of reasonable suspicion is illegal, so it wouldn't matter if Arizona's law said "Racially profile those brown folks to gain reasonable suspicion", it would still be illegal to do so.

I'm not saying Arizona's law does that, on the contrary I think it doesn't, but someone asked me to point out why I was saying it already was illegal for people to use racial profiling with this law and thus I did.
 
Orion,

No suggestion that the Judge was unduly influenced by members of the Obama Administratin or other critics of the bill? No suggestion that the open borders lobby attempted influence on her? No wondering about what "extras" the Judge may've got for her ruling?

That's funny, these were all the type of things you wondered about the last time we had a story about a judge ordering an injunction on a controversial government action.

The oil industry at work. It's hard to have effective governance when corporations have more pull these days. I wonder what extras this judge got for his ruling.
 
Back
Top Bottom