Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law

[iNow]

Is that really so hard to imagine?

 

"Well, officer, I was about to hire that guy to tile my roof and I asked him if he could produce his green card, and he could not."

 

"Well, officer, I was about to hire that gentleman to work in my fast food restaurant, but when I asked him for two sources of identification for his W-2, as I am required to do by Federal law, he admitted that he was in the country illegally."

 

"Well, officer, I was about to clear that gentleman to board the airplane but I asked to see his picture ID, like I do for all passengers, but his was clearly a forgery."

 

etc

First, you are referring to the potential employer, not the potentially illegal immigrant.

 

Second, you have now opened the need for you to address and clarify what was the officers probable cause to interrogate the potential employer.

 

Third, the appropriate response from law enforcement based on answers to your questions are already covered by existing law.

 

 

For those three reasons, I don't find your response applicable or relevant to my inquiry (remember, I'm not just dismissing you here. I provided three distinct rebuttals).

 

 

So... I ask again:

 

Besides actually seeing someone crawling under/over a fence on the border, please do tell WTF a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant is. We're now 100 posts into this thread, and despite that question being raised in post #4 it has yet to be addressed.

[ParanoiA]

Besides actually seeing someone crawling under/over a fence on the border, please do tell WTF a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant is. We're now 100 posts into this thread, and despite that question being raised in post #4 it has yet to be addressed.

 

Because it matters very little, since it is not a valid reason for lawful contact. Lawful contact must be made first, per the law, then "reasonable suspicion" kicks in for the illegal immigration status.

 

And while I also remain suspicious of what that reasonable suspicion will be, at least it's subtending a violation of law for the detention and ID requirement - it does not impact freedom of movement or make it ok for police officers to randomly inspect private information on a whim.

 

That means all accusations of racism are fabrications of one's own conscience. It's a false appeal made to put those who support enforcing illegal immigration laws on the defensive and to make the accuser look "noble" to his fans. There's not a single instance or example of any such thing, yet here we are fielding invectives of such as if it's the least bit validated. It's offensive, cheap and the same anti-intellectual drivel we get from racial supremacists.

 

Okay, I agree with challenging that assumption-of-racism (playing the race card), but dial it back a notch, please. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

 

Of course. This particular opinion is offensive and has gone unchecked. Members who splatter drive-by racial charges without cause would typically find themselves labeled a troll. I would think it grateful that we actually take such an extreme position seriously enough to critique it.

 

Do we not agree that accusing people of racism should carry a standard that at least requires something in the form of evidence? In a science forum, no less?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I look at racial profiling as an intelligent way to use the scientific method. Say we were trying to isolate an effect. We know the weeds are causing the plants in the garden to grow slower. The most efficient use of resources and manpower is to focus on weeds.

 

If we someone decided' date=' only looking at weeds, might hurt the weed's feelings; weed profiling, they might decide we need to randomly try all plants in the garden including the one we are trying to protect. This way we don't offend the weeds. This will take much more resources to achieve less results in more time. If the goal was not to achieve results this would be the path one needs to takes. But it is not a rational scientific path. This irrational science is called political science.

 

Here is how political science wants the weed experiment run; they want all the plants randomly offended, even the innocent, to lower the odds the criminal will be caught. The criminal party is sticking up for their fellow criminals and is willing to violate innocent citizens to do so, since this is what criminals do.[/quote']

 

The scientific method is not proper for governing though. Even if we accept your problematic "weeds" analogy, we have to negotiate codes of decency and principle that a scientific method would never respect. You seem to be conflating "offense" with basic 4th amendment protection - that is, if I take your post to be in support of racial profiling. And keep in mind, immigrants are white too, so racial profiling isn't a sound scientific method either, if that was your argument.

 

It's not that Nazi style "show me your papers" wouldn't work, it's that we don't work that way. Even if we could eliminate all crime by surrenduring our basic rights, should we follow through? I say, no way. But then, I don't use problem/solution performance to measure good or bad government.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ParanoiA
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

And while I also remain suspicious of what that reasonable suspicion will be...

Again, what exactly might that be? I'm just looking for clarity here.

 

 

Members who splatter drive-by racial charges without cause would typically find themselves labeled a troll. I would think it grateful that we actually take such an extreme position seriously enough to critique it.

 

Wow. I'm really feeling the love. Seriously... you should try buying me dinner or a drink before trying to seduce me like that.

 

There was cause, so your criticism is moot. Maybe it would have been more obvious had our friend Pioneer instead referred to them as a cancer instead of a weed? Remember... Our posts are not made in isolation. He's got a history, and this was hardly the first time such tendencies have come forth from his posts. It's quite possible your recollection of his posting history is not as stark as mine.

[Pangloss]

Besides actually seeing someone crawling under/over a fence on the border, please do tell WTF a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant is. We're now 100 posts into this thread, and despite that question being raised in post #4 it has yet to be addressed.

 

This is a red herring. The law is not limited to instances of an officer personally witnissing suspicious activity. The examples I gave of activity being reported to an officer are a perfectly valid example of potential enforcement opportunities provided by this law.

 

 

Do we not agree that accusing people of racism should carry a standard that at least requires something in the form of evidence? In a science forum, no less?

 

Not required, just challenged.

[swansont]

This is a red herring. The law is not limited to instances of an officer personally witnissing suspicious activity. The examples I gave of activity being reported to an officer are a perfectly valid example of potential enforcement opportunities provided by this law.

 

But aren't those examples of activity that could have been reported without this new law?

[iNow]

Precisely. Much as I stated already above in point number 3 of my original reply (post #101), existing law covers that. So yeah... What constitutes reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant?

[Mr Skeptic]

It's never a good idea to invent a new, undefined phrase ("lawful contact") in the most critical part of a law expected to be controversial. Also, the act makes being in the country illegal a crime; therefore upon reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally they are in the act of committing a crime and this grants the officer the lawful contact described above. Also, no warrant is necessary to arrest someone in this manner. Also, this law forbids all political subdivisions from having policies that limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law, and can be sued for failing to do so (and pay for the lawsuit and daily fines). This guarantees that this law will cause the trampling of people's rights; policies will be adopted to trample people's rights in favor of enforcing immigration law, for fear of being sued. It would be nice actually to have a law like this protecting the Constitution from violation, rather than just striking down unconstitutional laws whenever they reach the Supreme Court and saying "oops, try again".

 

The new law (pdf).

[ParanoiA]

How about a lack of understanding of basic English? This could suggest the possibility of being an immigrant, as opposed to a natural born citizen. That does not use skin color, or physical features of any kind, yet is plausible enough to provide "reasonable suspicion" when already detained and identified for another crime. A legal citizen will likely have a working knowledge of english.

 

Here's an interesting bit:

 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=

 

There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual....

 

...Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade.

 

And here's a meaningful observation and distinction from federal law:

 

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.

 

Now, why do I say the Arizona law is more restrictive of police than is federal law? Well, the Supreme Court has held that one common rationale for a permissible Terry stop is to ascertain the identity of the person who is detained. That is, federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place.

 

The Arizona law, by contrast, does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person's immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific "reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Mr Skeptic]

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed.

 

Of course, simply being in the country illegally is now a crime per this law, so all the officer needs is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant, and can then arrest them without a warrant.

[ParanoiA]

Of course, simply being in the country illegally is now a crime per this law, so all the officer needs is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant, and can then arrest them without a warrant.

 

It was already illegal. Maybe not at the state level, but certainly at the federal level.

 

And the law specifically states that lawful contact already has to be in progress before illegal immigration inquiry can then be made.

 

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, 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©.

 

You wouldn't know if they were in the act of committing illegal immigration on the count of being an illegal immigrant in order to make a lawful contact, or Terry stop, to see if they're an illegal immigrant.

 

Circular logic doesn't strike me as a feature here.

 

And again, that's where the question about "reasonable suspicion" continues to hang in suspense. It's my contention that it can stay in suspense because the law doesn't invoke such a thing.

 

In any case, absence of an answer to that question doesn't mean we get to fill in the blanks ourselves and conclude they're racists or nazi's.

[Mr Skeptic]

To me it looks like it goes like this:

1) Cop is reasonably suspicious that a person is an illegal immigrant.

2) Since cop is reasonably suspicious that a crime is in progress (per this law), cop initiates legal contact.

3) Since cop is has made lawful contact and is reasonably suspicious that this may be an illegal immigrant, cop makes a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person -- say, ask for ID and check it.

4) If person fails this test, cop arrests this man without a warrant, per this law.

[iNow]

5) US citizens being arrested merely for being more brown, poor looking, or having weak english speaking skills.

 

Hell, under that criteria we could start arresting construction workers in Mississippi.

I can't believe I'm having this argument with a self-professed libertarian.

[ParanoiA]

To me it looks like it goes like this:

1) Cop is reasonably suspicious that a person is an illegal immigrant.

2) Since cop is reasonably suspicious that a crime is in progress (per this law), cop initiates legal contact.

3) Since cop is has made lawful contact and is reasonably suspicious that this may be an illegal immigrant, cop makes a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person -- say, ask for ID and check it.

4) If person fails this test, cop arrests this man without a warrant, per this law.

 

Ok, even if the law employs circular logic - which it doesn't - you still haven't made the case for any exception at all. We do this already. Every crime can qualify for reasonable suspicion on the part of a suspect. Where is the problem at?

 

You have to make a leap of faith that they will use skin color and other irrational, racist methods - which do not pass for reasonable suspicion - simply because your imagination cannot conjure a valid form of suspicion.

 

In other words, your aversion is the result of your own lack of imagination and ability to think of a justifiable scenario - not for any other reason at all. Nothing in the law okay's racial profiling, or even suggests it. And I think that's what frustrates everyone the most.

 

Which brings me to the same question that receives the same silence as asking for reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration: Where does this law make it ok to stop people because they look mexican?

 

5) US citizens being arrested merely for being more brown' date=' poor looking, or having weak english speaking skills.

 

Hell, under that criteria we could start arresting construction workers in Mississippi.

I can't believe I'm having this argument with a self-professed libertarian. [/quote']

 

Your first two sentences have Glen Beck written all over them. If you like this argument style, then I advise learning how to be content having no credibility. Neither of those statements carry an ounce of reality.

 

As for the last, if that was directed at me, give me a break. This self-professed libertarian draws a very fat line between harassing citizens and policing them. Due process must occur, and reasonable suspicion is part of that process. There's no reason - yet - to suspect anyone of anything at all. And the law clearly states this particular reasonable suspicion must subtend temporary lawful detention.

 

I have no issue at all in deporting illegal immigrants. I have no issue at all in punishing employers. I have issues with how they do it. As long as they follow the constitution, and respect our civil liberties, then that's doing their job.

[Mr Skeptic]

You have to make a leap of faith that they will use skin color and other irrational, racist methods - which do not pass for reasonable suspicion - simply because your imagination cannot conjure a valid form of suspicion.

 

No, skin color actually is somewhat indicative of immigrant status, in a statistical sense. This law requires them to use any methods not prohibited by federal law, to enforce the immigration laws. Even if racial profiling directly is prohibited, they must use this statistical knowledge if they are able to do so within the confines of federal law.

[Pangloss]

Interesting quote from Democrat Chuck "I killed IndyMac" Schumer of New York today regarding the failed Times Square bombing that speaks to the "big brother" and "fascist police state" issue.

 

"The idea that someone would just pay cash at the last minute and just get on the airplane is particularly confounding."

 

Gee, and here I thought it was Republicans that were the problem. Oh wait, y'all say we have a Democrat in the White House too? You don't say!

 

 

But aren't those examples of activity that could have been reported without this new law?

 

What existing local law covers that? Apparently the answer to your question is no, since they feel they need this additional law. The whole point here is insufficient federal enforcement. What local law allows the local police to arrest someone on suspicion of illegal status because they filed a federal W-2 form without proper ID?

 

Also, let's say someone tries to rent a car without a driver's license. If no rental takes place then no law has been broken, but the clerk might suspect that they're illegal, and now they can report that to local authorities.

 

That's probably the key, IMO -- local reporting. Right now there's no way to get someone taken away -- you gonna pick up the phone and call some bureaucrat in D.C.?

 

Now you can just dial 911.

 

 

Even if racial profiling directly is prohibited, they must use this statistical knowledge if they are able to do so within the confines of federal law.

 

I've just listed several other ways in which people could become aware of someone's illegal status that have nothing to do with race.

[iNow]

You have to make a leap of faith that they will use skin color and other irrational, racist methods - which do not pass for reasonable suspicion - simply because your imagination cannot conjure a valid form of suspicion.

Can you give us a "for instance?"

A valid form of suspicion... Such as?

[Pangloss]

Such as the ones I listed.

[iNow]

Such as the ones I listed.

 

Sorry, but no. I've tried to be nice about it, but you're not getting it with me being subtle. Your arguments are not even wrong. You are discussing police interaction with potential employers, wherein the question relates specifically to police interaction with people in the US based on "reasonable suspicion" they are illegal immigrants. The potential employers aren't a factor given the wording of the Arizona law.

 

I understand you don't get this, but your failure to grasp why your argument is flawed does not mean it is not.

[Pangloss]

Or maybe I'm smart enough to recognize when a narrowly-defined question is being used to over-generalize an issue and frame a discussion.

 

But okay, so you agree then that there are multiple ways in which law enforcement can become aware of illegal immigrants. Then I suppose you agree that if they are not allowed to do racial profiling and as long as they're not actually doing profiling by some sneaky, covert maneuver, then this would be an acceptable law, yes?

[swansont]

How about a lack of understanding of basic English? This could suggest the possibility of being an immigrant, as opposed to a natural born citizen. That does not use skin color, or physical features of any kind, yet is plausible enough to provide "reasonable suspicion" when already detained and identified for another crime. A legal citizen will likely have a working knowledge of english.

 

"Suggests the possibility" is a lower standard than "reasonable suspicion."

 

First-generation legal immigrants comprise more than a tenth of our population. We have legal tourists from abroad. Those two categories far outnumber the estimate of illegal immigrants. Not speaking English well could give you as low as a 1-in-5 chance of finding an illegal, if the 11 million estimate of illegals is accurate. Which means harassing 4 legal residents for each illegal you detain.

[ParanoiA]

Can you give us a "for instance?"

A valid form of suspicion... Such as?

 

No, I can't. And because you and I can't think of one, doesn't mean they are going to use invalid racist ones. Why is this so hard to understand? I know you want to pretend they're racist thugs, just like the tea partiers, just like the Bush administration and Katrina, it's the left's catch-all card - but you've got zero evidence or supporting logic.

 

 

"Suggests the possibility" is a lower standard than "reasonable suspicion."

 

First-generation legal immigrants comprise more than a tenth of our population. We have legal tourists from abroad. Those two categories far outnumber the estimate of illegal immigrants. Not speaking English well could give you as low as a 1-in-5 chance of finding an illegal' date=' if the 11 million estimate of illegals is accurate. Which means harassing 4 legal residents for each illegal you detain. [/quote']

 

But "suggests the possibility" applies to whether or not they're an immigrant -not to whether or not we can query their immigration status.

 

Follow the logic here. I clearly stated "when already detained and identified for another crime" - at that point, the possibility of an immigrant (legal or illegal) can be determined by their working knowledge of English. If they don't understand basic things, like "please exit the car sir", "can I see your driver's license", "do you have insurance" - those kind of things, then we can reasonably conclude that this person is likely not a natural born US citizen.

 

Since they are already detained for another crime, and detention and identification is already in progress, then checking immigration for their status of legal or illegal is entirely called for and responsible at this point.

 

I'm not sure how else you could possibly check someone's status any more fairly than that. And I'm not sure the Arizona law provides for that, since I'm not sure their working knowledge of English is a measurement for such. I'm clearly allowing for something the Arizona law doesn't even allow - it still requires "reasonable suspicion" that they're an illegal immigrant, not just merely an immigrant, as in my example.

 

Just trying to work out some method of how an officer might come to reasonable suspicion without using skin color or physical appearance. I'm sure real world examples are much better than mine.

[Mr Skeptic]

Then I suppose you agree that if they are not allowed to do racial profiling and as long as they're not actually doing profiling by some sneaky, covert maneuver, then this would be an acceptable law, yes?

 

Except that this law requires them to do so. Really, it's not very forgiving about this. If they are allowed to do something under federal law, in their attempt to enforce immigration law, then they must do it. It's not like they are even allowed to follow the spirit of these laws; they are required to use sneaky workarounds if they are available. And if they don't do so, then they can be fined and sued.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Since they are already detained for another crime, and detention and identification is already in progress, then checking immigration for their status of legal or illegal is entirely called for and responsible at this point.

 

No, it quite clearly allows the status as an illegal immigrant as a crime. If they had wanted to say it like you say, it would have been really really easy to say so. But no, nowhere does it say that the lawful contact has to be related to some other crime. Any crime would do, and this law makes being an illegal immigrant a crime. Read the law please.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

No, it quite clearly allows the status as an illegal immigrant as a crime. If they had wanted to say it like you say, it would have been really really easy to say so. But no, nowhere does it say that the lawful contact has to be related to some other crime. Any crime would do, and this law makes being an illegal immigrant a crime. Read the law please.

 

Read my post please. None of that was about the Arizona law.

 

I'm clearly allowing for something the Arizona law doesn't even allow - it still requires "reasonable suspicion" that they're an illegal immigrant' date=' not just merely an immigrant, [b']as in my example[/b].

 

Just trying to work out some method of how an officer might come to reasonable suspicion without using skin color or physical appearance. I'm sure real world examples are much better than mine.

 

Now, let's read the law:

 

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, 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©.

 

"For any lawful contact made..." precedes "...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present..."

 

Lawful contact has to begin before the process of reasonably suspecting illegal immigration status. So lawful contact could not therefore be a result of reasonably suspecting an illegal alien, because the act of suspecting illegal aliens has to happen after a lawful contact.

 

Like I said, I don't believe circular logic is a feature of law. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so.

 

Regardless, I still have to consider reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration as something other than baseless racist charges. What if an undercover operative overhears someone say, "thank you for smuggling me and my family across the border"? Gee, that's very reasonable suspicion to me.

[swansont]

What existing local law covers that? Apparently the answer to your question is no, since they feel they need this additional law. The whole point here is insufficient federal enforcement. What local law allows the local police to arrest someone on suspicion of illegal status because they filed a federal W-2 form without proper ID?

 

Also, let's say someone tries to rent a car without a driver's license. If no rental takes place then no law has been broken, but the clerk might suspect that they're illegal, and now they can report that to local authorities.

 

That's probably the key, IMO -- local reporting. Right now there's no way to get someone taken away -- you gonna pick up the phone and call some bureaucrat in D.C.?

 

Now you can just dial 911.

 

Did you really mean to imply that customs and immigration have no local offices?

 

https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=offices.type&OfficeLocator.office_type=LO

[Mr Skeptic]

Read my post please. None of that was about the Arizona law.

 

Seems to be the same one I was talking about.

 

Now, let's read the law:

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, 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©.

 

 

"For any lawful contact made..." precedes "...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present..."

 

Yes it does. So what? How else did you think the cops are going to check immigrant status?

 

Lawful contact has to begin before the process of reasonably suspecting illegal immigration status. So lawful contact could not therefore be a result of reasonably suspecting an illegal alien, because the act of suspecting illegal aliens has to happen after a lawful contact.

 

Nope, this just specifies when to check whether the person is an illegal immigrant (after lawful contact, such as when they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime, such as being in the country illegally, has been or is being committed). When I said to read the law, I meant the rest of it as well. Is this the one you are talking about?

 

As I said earlier, "lawful contact" seems to be a rather new thing, but it would make sense that it has something to do with reasonable suspicion of a crime. And being in the country illegally is a crime, so therefore lawful contact can be made to investigate this.

 

But only after the lawful contact can the cop check the person's immigrant status.

 

Like I said, I don't believe circular logic is a feature of law. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so.

 

Regardless, I still have to consider reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration as something other than baseless racist charges. What if an undercover operative overhears someone say, "thank you for smuggling me and my family across the border"? Gee, that's very reasonable suspicion to me.

 

Believe all you like, but what do you think the effect of them being required to do everything legally possible to enforce this particular law will be?