Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law

[ParanoiA]

In US law today, any person in the US and having a legally authorized "Green Card" for any of the reasons they are issued, must carry that green card at ALL times, whether at the beach or walking their dog in the local park. "Carry your papers", Arizona law or NOT, already exist.

 

Yes, "Carry your papers" but not "let me see your papers". Think about it...when you demand to see these "papers", you do not yet know if this person is a natural born citizen or an immigrant. You can't know if this person is required to carry a green card or not until you identify them - that's the part that's unconstitutional in the Arizona law.

 

Those of us against this law for that reason are demanding probable cause. Skin color and racial distinctions are not probable cause. Natural born citizens look the same as citizens required to carry their papers.

 

So, again, what is the probable cause that allows Arizona to ignore the 4th amendment, at least in terms of the verbiage that authorizes that violation?

[swansont]

In US law today, any person in the US and having a legally authorized "Green Card" for any of the reasons they are issued, must carry that green card at ALL times, whether at the beach or walking their dog in the local park. "Carry your papers", Arizona law or NOT, already exist.

 

Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. So if a citizen is stopped, odds are pretty good that they will not have proof of citizenship. What then? They haven't broken any law. Can they be detained anyway? I think citizens who are detained will sue for civil rights violations, and even if the law is not overturned on constitutional grounds, the risk of having to settle lawsuits will make it expensive to enforce. But since the state can be sued for not enforcing the law (!), I think they've screwed themselves and will eventually have to repeal or amend it.

[jackson33]

P; I offered those links for informational purposes only, not to argue them. I am sure, under two or three arguments, the bill itself will be struck down, long before taking effect. I have also stated the entire purpose of the Arizona Legislature was to draw attention, to a major problem in the border States, which Arizona is suffering the most from crimes that evolve around 'Drug Trafficking'.

 

I'll give you or anyone that has the time to read the ACTUAL BILL, finding what you might think is unconstitutional. Also as previously stated, there is no mention of extending 'probable cause' (your word, profiling) or in fact 'due process', which is everyone's first thought, but doubt the bill can past a Constitutional Test on authority of a few demands placed on law enforcement, probably being struck down, by the Arizona SC...

 

 

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

 

 

 

 

Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. So if a citizen is stopped, odds are pretty good that they will not have proof of citizenship. What then? They haven't broken any law.[/Quote]

 

No, but under 'probable cause', meaning the law enforcement is acting on information or action of some person, then YES...

 

They haven't broken any law. Can they be detained anyway? [/Quote]

 

Yes, but again for what ever the probable cause was. This is where one of the Constitutional problems come in, where what may determine this can be different from State to State or in fact with in the State. IMO.

 

I think citizens who are detained will sue for civil rights violations, and even if the law is not overturned on constitutional grounds, the risk of having to settle lawsuits will make it expensive to enforce. But since the state can be sued for not enforcing the law (!), [/Quote]

 

I agree and the accusations will make enforcement of any law more difficult than it already is ...again probable cause and it's meaning to one person or another. There really quite different in Nogales or maybe Winslow and Safford. To unify this, to a standard procedure, IMO is NOT Constitutionally possible, probably even under the State Constitution.

 

I think they've screwed themselves and will eventually have to repeal or amend it.[/Quote]

 

No, they are getting 100 times more attention, than ever expected. Their particular problem is not imaginary and it has NOTHING to do with migrant workers.

[bascule]

Am I the only one who sees the fascist parallels?

 

No...

[ParanoiA]

You know, I may have to concede and eat some humble pie. I know better than to take reporting for granted, yet I have done just that. Actually, we all know better than that, and here's what I found right at the beginning of the bill:

 

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES,[/b'] A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

 

First thing, is "reasonable suspicion" legally equivalent to "probable cause"? That's crucial for this interpretation of the law, I think. And that's crucial for the political conclusion.

 

Now, I'm still asking "what is reasonable suspicion" or "what is probable cause for illegal immigration", but the law does *not* say law enforcement can randomly check for immigration status.

 

The rest of the bill is directed at trafficking and employers and stuff like that and I did not see anything else specifically pointing out law enforcement directives for investigative technique.

 

I'm going to have to relax on all this until I understand the legal distinction between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

 

Thanks for the link Jackson, I may stand corrected.

[Mr Skeptic]

First thing, is "reasonable suspicion" legally equivalent to "probable cause"?

 

I don't think so. These people know what probable cause is and what reasonable suspicion is, they're not as dumb as people like to pretend they are.

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.

 

But, what exactly gives "reasonable suspicion" that someone is in the act of being an illegal immigrant?

[iNow]

But, what exactly gives "reasonable suspicion" that someone is in the act of being an illegal immigrant?

Melanin.

Seriously... it could be nothing else. If it could be something else, I'd welcome someone explaining precisely what that is.

[Pangloss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration

The Middle West, some parts of Europe, small areas of South West Asia, and a few spots in the East Indies have the highest percentages of immigrant population recorded by the UN Census 2005.

The reliability of immigrant censuses is, however, lamentably low due to the concealed character of undocumented labor migration. The International Organization for Migration has estimated the number of foreign migrants to be over 200 million worldwide today.[4]

 

So, we are not the country with the highest percentage of immigrants by far, despite being the country that is the most desired destination for immigrants. So no, I'm not buying the "we're already loose" argument.

 

I provided evidence that we are extremely open. You provided evidence that we may not be as open as

some underdeveloped nations

. I'm not seeing a lot of reason to change my mind here.

 

 

All this is especially ironic because we are a country almost entirely made of immigrants. The natives are a very small minority. And yet, now that we have lived here long enough to consider it our home, we limit the amount of immigration.

 

Yes, we absolutely do. Just like

every other western nation

.

 

 

Recent surveys by Gallup found roughly 700 million adults would like to migrate to another country permanently if they had the chance.

The United States is the top desired destination country.

 

Wow, yes indeed, let's

triple

the size of the country

without any qualifications

in the midst of a budget deficit and national debt level the likes of which

the entire world has never seen

.

 

Thanks for reminding us exactly why an open border is an invitation to disaster.

 

(Well, except for Democrats running for office.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Seriously... it could be nothing else. If it could be something else, I'd welcome someone explaining precisely what that is.

I'm sure we'll have a discussion about that as soon as

Arizona

decides what it is.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

I provided evidence that we are extremely open. You provided evidence that we may not be as open as some underdeveloped nations. I'm not seeing a lot of reason to change my mind here.

 

Exactly. I'm proud of our immigration laws and our comparitively open atmosphere.

 

The only thing that bugs me about conservatives on this issue, in general, is this appeal to 'importing cultures' and criticizing immigrants for not embracing an "american culture". I really don't get this. I want their culture imported. That is american culture. I'm not calling them bigots, but I do find it offensive to hold that view and overly traditionalist.

 

All this is especially ironic because we are a country almost entirely made of immigrants. The natives are a very small minority. And yet, now that we have lived here long enough to consider it our home, we limit the amount of immigration.

 

I used to have an extremely open border position on immigration. That changed once I got in a debate here with a member, Bookworm, if I remember correctly. Bookworm did a thorough job of chopping my arguments to pieces and getting through to my head what true control-free immigration looks like and what it does to economy and standard of living. You think it's the rich that gets displaced? Think again. You think it's the middle class that gets displaced? Think again. It's the already pretty damn poor that get hit hardest by unending surges of ridiculously cheap labor. They don't need it any worse than they already have it.

 

The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, controlled flow of immigrants is necessary to balance the ability of the economy to adjust to that flow. Your grass doesn't grow when you flood it with water - it grows when you water it slowly, consistently, in balance with the environment. (this, coming from a man that can only grow weeds in his yard...)

 

The reason everyone wants to come to the US is because of our standard of living and opportunity available - all of which vanishes when you open the flood gates (and yes, that includes white people from Europe). That will definitely stop immigration into the US then, and may start up immigration out of the US instead.

 

 

We need immigrants and we want immigrants. We are built on it, and we should always be proud of that. I love the notion of bringing us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. I love the whole idea of having more variety of humans here than any place else on the planet. To continue to be that beakon of hope, opportunity and diversity in the world for the future we must preserve it. That means balance, which also means hard reality. That's life.

 

Seriously... it could be nothing else. If it could be something else, I'd welcome someone explaining precisely what that is.

 

Same here.

 

Although, after reading that bill, I noticed a section about illegal hiring practices - like automobiles stopping in the middle of the road, in traffic, to solicit workers standing on the corner or what not. Since this is illegal, per the bill, then I'm guessing that's probable cause anyway and they could act to identify and all that. But it could be those behaviors that satisfy "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" for illegal immigration, by itself.

 

Honestly, I think we're going to have to see what they do. I don't read anything in the bill that directly suggests 'show me your papers'. I read some things in the bill that make me suspicious of 'show me your papers', so I'll be watching.

Edited April 30, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jackson33]

Reasonable Suspicion, to satisfy probable cause has long been an acceptable practice (phrase). Trying to alter the meaning of the term 'Suspicious' in the Arizona Law wording, is NOT warranted. An older case in part;

 

Cite as: Hiibel v. Dist. Ct.

118 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 88

December 20, 2002

 

OPINION

By the Court, YOUNG, C.J.:

 

The pertinent issue before us is whether NRS 171.123(3), which requires a person stopped under reasonable suspicion by a police officer to identify himself or herself, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We conclude NRS 171.123(3) does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it strikes a balance between constitutional protections of privacy and the need to protect police officers and the public. Therefore, Hiibels petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

 

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.[/Quote]

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=118NevAdvOpNo88&invol=2

 

 

In the build up to this decision, NOTE, the inference to suspicious being more restrictive to enforcement than "Probable Cause" and the idea Arizona wished to stay with in Federal Guide Lines, not EXTEND THEM. My opinion.

 

Cowboy Dudley Hiibel is challenging a Nevada statute, NRS 171.123 (3), which says the police can require someone detained pursuant to a so-called "Terry stop" to identify themselves. The Terry stop—cooked up in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio—carved out an exception to the old Fourth Amendment requirement that people can't be searched and seized absent "probable cause" to believe they'd committed a crime. If "probable cause" signified the level of police commitment necessary for a meaningful relationship with a criminal defendant, Terry authorized the one-night-stand, giving cops the right to initiate quickie detentions—including a brief, unerotic frisk—of folks who are sort of suspicious but not suspicious enough to justify an arrest. [/Quote]

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2097516/

 

I'm not sure, suspicion in itself is even justification for a warrant where 'probable cause' is a necessity. Since we're talking about Latino's (erroneous in itself) looking Mexican alone, could never be justifiably used to question anyone, much less require identification. Where this will happen and always has been, the individual will have legal grounds for liable and dismissal of his/her case or both, exactly what law enforcement does not want...

[ParanoiA]

Jackson, I don't dispute the above. I use the word 'suspicious' because I still don't know of an example of "reasonable suspicion" for the crime of illegal immigration alone.

 

It may well be they don't plan on even attempting to apply reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration, all by itself. But in theory, every crime, including illegal immigration, implicitly carries this "reasonable suspicion" with it.

[swansont]

Cowboy Dudley Hiibel is challenging a Nevada statute, NRS 171.123 (3), which says the police can require someone detained pursuant to a so-called "Terry stop" to identify themselves. The Terry stop—cooked up in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio—carved out an exception to the old Fourth Amendment requirement that people can't be searched and seized absent "probable cause" to believe they'd committed a crime. If "probable cause" signified the level of police commitment necessary for a meaningful relationship with a criminal defendant, Terry authorized the one-night-stand, giving cops the right to initiate quickie detentions—including a brief, unerotic frisk—of folks who are sort of suspicious but not suspicious enough to justify an arrest.

 

It should be noted that a stop & frisk under Terry is for weapons only — not contraband — in order to ensure the safety of the officer. Of course, if s/he finds an illegal weapon, that's cause for arrest. This being Arizona, though, that's not going to help, since they just passed the law making concealed weapons legal.

[Moontanman]

Cowboy Dudley Hiibel is challenging a Nevada statute, NRS 171.123 (3), which says the police can require someone detained pursuant to a so-called "Terry stop" to identify themselves. The Terry stop—cooked up in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio—carved out an exception to the old Fourth Amendment requirement that people can't be searched and seized absent "probable cause" to believe they'd committed a crime. If "probable cause" signified the level of police commitment necessary for a meaningful relationship with a criminal defendant, Terry authorized the one-night-stand, giving cops the right to initiate quickie detentions—including a brief, unerotic frisk—of folks who are sort of suspicious but not suspicious enough to justify an arrest.

 

It should be noted that a stop & frisk under Terry is for weapons only — not contraband — in order to ensure the safety of the officer. Of course, if s/he finds an illegal weapon, that's cause for arrest. This being Arizona, though, that's not going to help, since they just passed the law making concealed weapons legal.

 

I'm not sure how it works in Arizona but in my state if you are carrying a legal concealed weapon and are confronted by the police you are expected to immediately inform the officer you are carrying the weapon and produce your permit.

[swansont]

I'm not sure how it works in Arizona but in my state if you are carrying a legal concealed weapon and are confronted by the police you are expected to immediately inform the officer you are carrying the weapon and produce your permit.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Arizona required the same; you could then preclude a search altogether by surrendering your weapon(s). But rulings have also found that the 4th amendment allows you to simply walk away, absent probable cause to detain you. i.e. you have the right to not talk to the police, and not talking to the police does not constitute probable cause.

[Moontanman]

I wouldn't be surprised if Arizona required the same; you could then preclude a search altogether by surrendering your weapon(s). But rulings have also found that the 4th amendment allows you to simply walk away, absent probable cause to detain you. i.e. you have the right to not talk to the police, and not talking to the police does not constitute probable cause.

 

I guess that's true but i am a lawful citizen of the USA, my respect for law enforcement would preclude such a disrespectful attitude.

[Mr Skeptic]

I guess that's true but i am a lawful citizen of the USA, my respect for law enforcement would preclude such a disrespectful attitude.

 

Well, there's that and then there's this guy: http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/02/clackamas_man_exercises_free_s.html

 

Always nice to see someone standing up for our rights.

[jryan]

This bill was written to mirror the federal laws regarding immigration enforcement, and requires the Arizona police, as per existing law, to check immigration status with the Federal Immigration service. This was done because the first rule in court when a law is challenged as usurping Federal law is whether the state law is sufficiently different as to show a disregard for the Federal law. That can't happen with this law as Federal and State law are the same.

 

The best argument that I have seen from the opposing side is that courts have found that Federal law is rendered moot when it is not enforced. The argument here is that Arizona is trying to enforce laws that the Federal Government conceivably rendered moot through inaction. This would establish a difference in the Federal and State law as the state law would be enforced.

 

Good luck on that, though.

 

This is the fourth immigration law passed by Arizona that is destined for legal challenge, so the Arizona legislature has lots of experience (hence the meticulous adherence to the previous rulings).... and a 3-0 record versus all legal challenges.

[Moontanman]

Well, there's that and then there's this guy: http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/02/clackamas_man_exercises_free_s.html

 

Always nice to see someone standing up for our rights.

 

Most police officers I've had the misfortune to cross were quite polite and nice about it, I've seen them put up with stuff that if it was done to me someones ass would have been kicked. They catch quite a bit of hell due to unpopular laws and the occasional officer who really is an asshole.

 

But then again...

 

A good friend of mine was killed by a police officer in a traffic stop, the officer accidentally shot him at point blank range in the back of the head while he sat at the wheel of his car.

 

He had a history of problems with that police officer and the officer went scott free. No one was there to say what really happened. I think I'll continue to treat them with respect, deserved or not, i don't want a 9mm in the back of my head.

[swansont]

I guess that's true but i am a lawful citizen of the USA, my respect for law enforcement would preclude such a disrespectful attitude.

 

That's your prerogative, but I don't have the same view regarding an attempt to violate my civil rights. For me it clashes with the notion that people died preserving our rights, and to me it would be disrespectful to let someone trample them.

[DrDNA]

I'm not sure how it works in Arizona but in my state if you are carrying a legal concealed weapon and are confronted by the police you are expected to immediately inform the officer you are carrying the weapon and produce your permit.

 

In Arizona you are not obligated to inform the officer if you are carrying unless he specifically asks you.

I should note that this is for a person carrying a concealed weapon with a CCW permit.

I'm not exactly sure how or if the new no permit law effects that (but its a good question which I will look up eventually).

 

My own CCW instructor advised us to use our own best judgment in such matters, but he did state that he does not volunteer the information unless directly asked by an officer.

His full time job is training Arizona DPS officers and local jurisdictions all over the state in tactical use of firearms, so I would suspect that he has some insight on the matter.

 

Personally, I've had cops ask and not ask.

If they just want to see my license and registration without me getting out of the vehicle, I don't volunteer any additional info.

But if they ask me to get out of the vehicle, and they haven't already asked, I will tell them what I've got shoved in my pants (or in my belly strap or around my ankle), while my hands are in plain sight on the steering wheel, before exiting.

[Moontanman]

That's your prerogative, but I don't have the same view regarding an attempt to violate my civil rights. For me it clashes with the notion that people died preserving our rights, and to me it would be disrespectful to let someone trample them.

 

I'm not sure why showing a law enforcement officer some level of respect is allowing him to trample my rights. I treat them the same way I treat anyone else, I expect them to treat me with some respect as well but if i was in a position that called for the officer to suspect me for some reason giving him the finger would seem to be needlessly provocative in any situation.

 

If I really felt he was trampling my rights i would contact a lawyer and we would go to court, doing something disrespectful back to him seems childish and counter productive to me.

[Mr Skeptic]

And they can and do abuse said "respect" for the law, by doing such things as implicitly getting your permission to search without a warrant ("I'm going to search your car now, is that OK?" rather than "May I search your car"). People should feel free to disrespect the police, and the police had better not abuse their government-granted powers to limit your free-speech ability to disrespect them. Being provocative is not a crime, nor should a cop pay special attention to see if you do anything wrong and then nail you for it, just because you said something disrespectful to him.

[Pangloss]

People should feel free to disrespect the police, and the police had better not abuse their government-granted powers to limit your free-speech ability to disrespect them. Being provocative is not a crime, nor should a cop pay special attention to see if you do anything wrong and then nail you for it, just because you said something disrespectful to him.

 

How does being rude help you protect your rights, exactly?

[swansont]

How does being rude help you protect your rights, exactly?

 

It doesn't. But rights are not contingent upon being polite and deferential. And if a rude guy's rights are secure, I'm more confident that mine are.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not sure why showing a law enforcement officer some level of respect is allowing him to trample my rights. I treat them the same way I treat anyone else, I expect them to treat me with some respect as well but if i was in a position that called for the officer to suspect me for some reason giving him the finger would seem to be needlessly provocative in any situation.

 

If I really felt he was trampling my rights i would contact a lawyer and we would go to court, doing something disrespectful back to him seems childish and counter productive to me.

 

I understand your point, really. You're trying to be reasonable and thoughtful about it and that's commendable. But defiance runs rich in the romance of our republic, tracing back to our founding. It's always heartening to me to see any scrap of that still alive today. We do have to fiercely fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic rights.

 

That said, the defiance I'm getting from some here is really choking me up guys....you make me proud SFN.

 

And they can and do abuse said "respect" for the law, by doing such things as implicitly getting your permission to search without a warrant ("I'm going to search your car now, is that OK?" rather than "May I search your car"). People should feel free to disrespect the police, and the police had better not abuse their government-granted powers to limit your free-speech ability to disrespect them. Being provocative is not a crime, nor should a cop pay special attention to see if you do anything wrong and then nail you for it, just because you said something disrespectful to him.

 

Well, I don't think that's abuse though, or at least not your example. Personally, I resent many of my interactions with law enforcement and their pushy, bossy, drama method of assessing me or my family. I could tell you a couple of stories since I moved here to Blue Springs, MO and how much I wanted to smack these power tripped idiots and their overall entitlement attitude to authority in all situations.

 

But...a big but here...that's their role. That's what they're supposed to do. To be authoritative pricks. "Bad guys" hate that. And that's what we want them to do. To wear those terminator sunglasses, strut with some attitude, and don't take any shit. I don't want them overly concerned about my rights and being cordial when I have an intruder in my home - I want them to burst right in and gun the f**cker down; I want them to feel entitled to enter my home and deal with it.

 

So, I piss and moan when they treat me badly, but really we need them to push to protect us and themselves as much as possible. Not a total disrespect though.

 

How does being rude help you protect your rights, exactly?

 

I don't think it does, but it sure does feel good.