I think it's a great law. I've read it and there's a lot of distortion about it. It's just fear mongering. Preexisting Law ALREADY requires immigrants to carry papers btw. Can you quote a part of it where there is a precedent for racial profiling?
Yes, but pre-existing law doesn't compel police officers to check papers. Pre-existing law requires that any illegals be turned over to INS. If a resident is arrested without papers, they are also to be turned over to INS for status verification.
This law requires that police check papers without probable cause. If someone feels that the police aren't doing that, this law permits civil lawsuits against the police. In other words, they have very little choice but to walk around, asking for peoples papers. In addition, instead of turning a legal resident over to INS for status verification if they aren't carrying their papers, they are to be held in jail for 6 months.
You're right. There's nothing specific about racial profiling in the bill. The racial profiling is implied. How likely is it that they'll catch any Canadian illegal immigrants? The fact is, even the governor couldn't say what an illegal immigrant looked like. There were some police that said they could tell by the clothing (one said he knew by the shoes), but again that's non-specific. What people wear is very cultural...in LA I've seen many Latino men wearing boots, jeans, button down shirts, and cowboy hats.
So...if I were a cop...I would stop everyone in LA with that clothing sense?
At the end of the day, past all the misleading bullet points (like the one you stated saying it was mostly the same as the Federal law), this is the REAL problem with the law: Most of the Latinos living in AZ (and CA where I was born & raised) are CITIZENS. What will happen when a police officer demands the "papers" from one and he/she refuses as is his/her Constitutional right?
On the same line, can't an illegal immigrant just day he is a citizen and exorcising his Constitutional right, then?
Big, gaping hole.
Already, the sheriff in Phoenix has refused to enforce the law and there will be others as the weeks go on when they get this small Constitutional point and understand that "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" nature of the civil portion of the bill.
What I find even more interesting, is where are the Libertarian groups on this? They should be protesting in the streets. I mean, this is a perfect example of big Government, isn't it?
If the law was what you said I also would appose it. Have you read it rather than reading commentaries about it? Here's what it says
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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."
I'm trying to understand how you can actually read that and the take away you get is that police are required to check people without probable cause? Also how do you read that there has to already be lawful contact (traffic stop, stopping someone from committing a crime etc) before they can check papers at all and then say that if you were a cop you would just be stopping people randomly on the street. Just be honest; You haven't actually read it.
I have read it and this is my worry. Read that statement again and define "reasonable suspicion". It's in that in which profiling is implied. It's also very broad, almost like saying that everyone is presumed illegal until they can prove that they are not.
How would you define reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal in a state where 20% of the population are Latino citizens? Latinos hanging out at the local Home Depot?
"lawful contact" = "Hi. I'm a cop." "reasonable suspicion" = "You look like an illegal to me."
When asked to define what would qualify as reasonable suspicion during the signing ceremony, the governor was unable to.
And that still doesn't answer the 2 constitutional issues:
1) The right of citizens to refuse to show identification.
2) The 14th amendment and Federal law superceeding state law.
How would I personally define "reasonable suspicion"? Well keeping in mind that I'm not a lawyer; How about (lets leave the home depot scenario out, I hope that's hyperbole and you don't actuality believe that) a cop stops a driver running a red-light with no license who doesn't speak English? Or maybe someone who doesn't speak English comes walking through the desert?
In any event...
"lawful contact" has just been amended to clearify that it does not mean "Hi I'm a cop" but "stop, detain or arrest." are you uncomfortable with that?
Are you willing to concede that "the law REQUIRES police to check papers WITHOUT probable cause" was a just you lying (since you have read the law which expressly says reasonable suspicion ?) Was that a type-o? Or are you lying now when you say you've read it? How do we reconcile this inconsistency? Maybe you think "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are opposites hence your directly contradictory (to the actual law) quote?
That being said, I actually agree with the premise of what your saying since I lean libertarian myself but I'm really REALLY disgusted by misinformation. I cherish civil liberties but I hate partisan spin.
I applaud you're adherence to the constitution. I think it should be interesting to see how the unenforced federal government laws which super-cede state laws will reconcile with the enforced state laws which mirror federal laws (they were designed with that sort of language) plays out. I guess ultimately we'll see it play out in the courts.
I hope legal and illegal immigrant are treated with respect and the illegals are put to the back of the line behind those that have gone through the process where they belong. I'd also like to point out that parts of my family were illegal and some are legal (just to give you a point of reference of where I'm coming from.)
If a non-English speaking guy comes out of the desert with a dozen guys behind him (and maybe one woman), I hope he's not tossed in the back of a paddy wagon. Maybe if he shows the cops that cool trick he does with water...
Anyway, most of what you said on "reasonable suspicion" is fine, except for the language part. If the person turns out to be a legal resident or citizen, he could win a civil lawsuit against the police officer for discrimination. It's the equivalent of saying that you suspect someone of being illegal because you see evidence of them being Catholic 90% of Mexicans are Catholic.
No, I wasn't lying. "Reasonable suspicion" is a far cry from probable cause. If you get the chance (hopefully not because you've been pulled over for speeding or something ) ask a police officer what the difference is. Basically, probable cause is a much tougher legal test. Physical evidence of a crime must be actually visible to the police officer. "Reasonable suspicion" means that the officer simply thinks that someone committed a crime based on less direct evidence. For example, during an interview on Cris Matthews last week an AZ officer stated that he knew illegals by the *shoes they wore*. That can be defined as reasonable suspicion, but wouldn't pass the probable cause test.
Yeah, I'm tired of the partisan bullet points, too...but it's hard to avoid them because most news programs get their political news from press releases sent by political offices, so that's how they report it.
BTW, I'm a mix of a couple things adopted when I was 3 years old and now working overseas 11 months out of the year. And I am an immigrant worker living in a place where I can't hide the fact that I'm not a citizen: Taiwan. LOL
Besides the fact that that's the craziest theological second coming scenario I've ever heard and Jesus Christ can speak to anyone he wants including English... wow that makes it really hard not to just call "troll."
What do YOU actually think IS reasonable suspicion? or probable cause for that matter? What language would you use to address illegal immigration (make it federal if it makes you feel happy)? Write it out so that msnbc thinks it's a great idea and tax-payers love it.
It wasn't a troll, it was a satirical joke. Thus the smiley face at the end.
My sincerest apologies if you were insulted by that statement. Seriously.
My point is that it should be probable cause, NOT reasonable suspicion. Like I stated, some of what you stated would be considered probable cause, such as not having a driver's license, would be probable cause.
As I've stated since the beginning, my worry is the definition of "reasonable suspicion", which no one seems to have...not the politicians who wrote the bill or the governor...I guess both of them expect individual officers to define their own standard for "reasonable suspicion". That worries me.