I am confused....

[KarthVader]

I can't trust a police officer LOOKING for illegal immigrants, because it will all come down to an issue of color and racial profiling, regardless of what the law says. The law might be perfect, but people aren't.

My family legally immigrated from India a couple generations ago and it sucks that people are finding ways to circumvent a legal process to enter this country. But enforcing a law that asks a person to make a judgement call based on suspicion and face value, is ridiculous.

When economic times are tough and jobs are scarce, it's easy to use illegal immigration as a scapegoat. Remember, this argument has been around for ages; used on European, African and Asian immigrants. It's sad, but it seems to come down to anyone that looks different from the "norm".

Yes, there needs to be immigration reform, but racial profiling and pseudo-Fascist tactics are not the way to go.

 

[AndrewWiggin]

I'm trying to figure out if the reasonable suspicion provision means reasonable suspicion in terms of stopping someone in the process of another crime, or suspicion of being illegal.

I understand the concerns if it's the latter, but a lot of analysts are talking about the law granting the police the capacity to ask someone their immigration status after they've been picked up for a different crime.

This would actually make the most sense, as AZ's crime rates have increased significantly, and there were several recent, highly publicized murders committed by illegal immigrants. There's also the fact that drug cartel activity made one of AZ's cities the kidnap capital of the world recently.

As someone posted earlier, I don't understand what AZ is going to do with them once they have them in custody, since they have to be turned over to ICE. ICE isn't going to do anything with them, and if/when that happens and AZ tries to enact a law to deport illegal immigrants, that absolutely will be struck down.

 

[Confilo]

I would be offended.

I'll be extremely offended too. In fact I'm offended the law was passed.

 

[BrianL]

I need to see some papers.

 

[Confilo]

To be quite honest I am quite tan and am mistaken quite often by hispanics to be hispanic myself. I would not mind at all to be asked to show proof at a time of being stopped by an officer. It would show me that they were doing their job and I would applaud and thank them.

**BTW, I am not trying to start a heated debate but rather am searching for a real answer to my question from a supporter of the opposition which holds merit. I apologize if it looks as otherwise.

Do not confuse being tan with been Latinos. We come in all colors it seems you are already stereotyping us.

 

[AndrewWiggin]

Not that anyone cares anymore, but to clarify: initial contact with someone has to be lawful, i.e. the officer has to have reasonable suspicion for some other crime to have occurred.

In other words, there are two reasonable suspicion barriers: the first being suspicion of a crime, the second being suspicion of no documentation.

So, a police officer can't walk up and ask for papers. An officer can, after stopping someone because of articulable reasonable suspicion (meaning he can provide a rationale that a crime was about to be committed or just had been committed, not just "they look foreign"), ask for identification and documentation, if he can articulate reasonable suspicion for the person having no documentation.

It's a lot of hyperventilating for something that's not going to happen-the courts have ruled over and over again that reasonable suspicion cannot be "they look hispanic/black/insert other minority." It may still happen insofar as stops go, but the actual legal proceedings-you'll win against the cops every time.

 

[castlecraver]

This law is not the way to stop the problem of illegal immigration. You should go after the companies that hire illegals.

Thank you. Want to end illegal immigration? Severely fine companies who employ illegals and enforce the hell out of it.

It$ alway$ confu$sed me why that ha$n't been $eriou$ly $ugge$ted by any congre$$.

 

[Obsessed]

Not that anyone cares anymore, but to clarify: initial contact with someone has to be lawful, i.e. the officer has to have reasonable suspicion for some other crime to have occurred.

In other words, there are two reasonable suspicion barriers: the first being suspicion of a crime, the second being suspicion of no documentation.

Wrong.

 

[Austin]

I need to see some papers.

 

[Hawkeye5]

I spent 30 years as an INS Special Agent. The State has no authority to enforce Immigration laws plain and simple. They can pass whatever law they want but in the end when they catch the aliens and call ICE to come get them ICE will probably say no then what is Arizona going to do? They won't be able to afford to hold them and they can't deport them and very quickly they will be sued for violating someones civil rights. I predict it will be a law that will never be enforced.

May a State not protect it's citizens when the Federal government neglects it's Constitutional duty?

The law does not have to be enforced! Only the threat of enforcement may send caravans leaving to the North, South, and East. Perhaps AZ could charter buses for San Francisco? They might effectively dump their problem on several other States.

And who said non-citizens have civil rights? Rights to humane treatment I would agree. But rights under the Constitution for non-citizens, or more narrowly, those here in defiance of our Federal laws? Here lies the true question.

 

[Hawkeye5]

Thank you. Want to end illegal immigration? Severely fine companies who employ illegals and enforce the hell out of it.

It$ alway$ confu$sed me why that ha$n't been $eriou$ly $ugge$ted by any congre$$.

Ahh Haa! Another skeptic.

 

[AndrewWiggin]

Wrong.

Reasoning?

 

[Obsessed]

Reasoning?

The law does not require police to have a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed another crime before checking their immigration status. You are reading too much into the "lawful contact" language.

 

[Sal]

The law does not require police to have a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed another crime before checking their immigration status. You are reading too much into the "lawful contact" language.

looks like the ambiguity has been taken care of

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...zona-tweaks-new-immigration-law-92495249.html

The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “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…” Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “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.”

I saw this story yesterday and it appears the bill is working even before it takes effect.

Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law

 

[Obsessed]

Just for clarification, I don't believe the changes Sal refers to in the prior post have been formally adopted. Here's the text of the law as it currently stands, so everyone can refer to the same thing:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm

In any event, I still think it's unconstitutional, but we'll see what the courts say. (I'm shocked, shocked that more of our members who are fanatical about the Constitution aren't backing me up on this! )

 

[Sal]

Just for clarification, I don't believe the changes Sal refers to in the prior post have been formally adopted. Here's the text of the law as it currently stands, so everyone can refer to the same thing

They were just approved by both the house and senate yesterday and Gov Brewers spokesman said that she will sign it.

 

[Obsessed]

They were just approved by both the house and senate yesterday and Gov Brewers spokesman said that she will sign it.

Good, so we can put that behind us and argue about some other aspect of it! (Just kidding, mods!)

 

[miamimoe]

Without debating the merits, this law will not survive its first court challenge. It violates the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, and probably violates the due process and equal protection clauses. A first year law student could win this one.

Many years ago, Governor Lawton Chiles of Florida, a rarity among politicians, an honest and capable man ordered the Florida Attorney General to sue the United States government for the monies expended by the state in housing, feeding, educating, providing health care services, etc. for the thousands of people who had come into the State of Florida illegally. The case got bounced fairly quickly. If I recall correctly, the federal appeals court conceded that the federal government was not doing its job, that the State was expending state monies as regards a federal issue, and still ruled against the State of Florida.

No, Lou in Vegas is giving 500-1 odds on this case moving past the first level of appeals.