Arizona Bill on Immigration

[tigerbob]

There's something wrong with that? If the person has their identification on them there won't be a problem.

Do you drive without your drivers license? Do you know that if you get pulled over without it, you too can get arrested? What's the difference?

Rick

The difference is that if you are driving, and don't have a license then you are guilty of the crime of driving without a license....

...Not guilty of not having an ID.

The difference is that if you are living in the US, and don't have a license then you are guilty of the crime of living in the U.S. without a license....

...Not guilty of not having an ID.

 

[Claudette]

From the bill linked:



So, if a police officer suspects a person might be an illegal alien (which is an offense that makes a person removable from the US) than they can arrest them, at will, without a warrant.

There's something wrong with that? If the person has their identification on them there won't be a problem.

Do you drive without your drivers license? Do you know that if you get pulled over without it, you too can get arrested? What's the difference?

Rick

Difference is, they need a reason to pull you over in every state but Arizona. There they can pull anyone over just on the suspicion that you are not in the country legally.

It is racist, you are too much a partisan hack to see it.

What a bunch of BS. YOu obviously didn't read the bill.

The police CANNOT do anything without Probable cause. They can't just stop you because you look like you might be illegal. They have to have a reason. You have to violate a law of some kind. If you are stopped and your in this country legally from another country, by law you are supposed to carry your green card. Show your green card and your good to go. Jeeze.

This bill was mirrored on the Fed rules and regs. It was carefully crafted by the writers. They knew this would probably go to the SC and they wanted the best chance to get it throuth the SC.

I wish folks were as worried about the people on the Border in AZ and TX as they are about the rights of ILLEGALS in this country. Talk about PC. God you folks need to catch at damned clue.

 

[hboats]

The difference is that if you are driving, and don't have a license then you are guilty of the crime of driving without a license....

...Not guilty of not having an ID.

Yes, and what part of illegal immigrant don't you understand? If you're here illegally and don't have your papers you get arrested. It's called the law, and Arizona is finally upholding it.

Rick

I'm honestly not sure if you all are being intentionally contrary, or you really don't understand the point of "innocent until proven guilty".

The only reason a policeman would have an opportunity to arrest someone for driving without a license is if they had committed another crime, like speeding, and the policeman noticed the lack of a driver's license. Thus the lack of a Driver's license is not assumed until evidence exists of it's lack.

In this case, guilt is assumed, and the suspects must prove that they are not guilty, rather than the onus being on the arresting officer to provide justification for the original suspicion.

In addition, the police are forced to make such rash judgements, or face fines for not "correctly" enforcing the law.

Innocent until proven guilty has NOTHING to do with being arrested. It has to do with a court of law. A police officer has the authority to arrest and let the judge and jury deem innocence or guilt.

The fact of the matter is, that an illegal immigrant is BREAKING THE LAW. The police have the right/authority to arrest and let the Feds sort it out.

Rick

 

[Ravi]

Yes, and what part of illegal immigrant don't you understand? If you're here illegally and don't have your papers you get arrested. It's called the law, and Arizona is finally upholding it.

Rick

I'm honestly not sure if you all are being intentionally contrary, or you really don't understand the point of "innocent until proven guilty".

The only reason a policeman would have an opportunity to arrest someone for driving without a license is if they had committed another crime, like speeding, and the policeman noticed the lack of a driver's license. Thus the lack of a Driver's license is not assumed until evidence exists of it's lack.

In this case, guilt is assumed, and the suspects must prove that they are not guilty, rather than the onus being on the arresting officer to provide justification for the original suspicion.

In addition, the police are forced to make such rash judgements, or face fines for not "correctly" enforcing the law.

Innocent until proven guilty has NOTHING to do with being arrested. It has to do with a court of law. A police officer has the authority to arrest and let the judge and jury deem innocence or guilt.

The fact of the matter is, that an illegal immigrant is BREAKING THE LAW. The police have the right/authority to arrest and let the Feds sort it out.

Rick

Being in the country illegally is a CIVIL offense under US immigration law, not a CRIMINAL offense. People are not jailed for civil offenses. Arizona has made it a criminal offense and I don't see where they have the authority to do such a thing.

 

[hboats]

I'm honestly not sure if you all are being intentionally contrary, or you really don't understand the point of "innocent until proven guilty".

The only reason a policeman would have an opportunity to arrest someone for driving without a license is if they had committed another crime, like speeding, and the policeman noticed the lack of a driver's license. Thus the lack of a Driver's license is not assumed until evidence exists of it's lack.

In this case, guilt is assumed, and the suspects must prove that they are not guilty, rather than the onus being on the arresting officer to provide justification for the original suspicion.

In addition, the police are forced to make such rash judgements, or face fines for not "correctly" enforcing the law.

Innocent until proven guilty has NOTHING to do with being arrested. It has to do with a court of law. A police officer has the authority to arrest and let the judge and jury deem innocence or guilt.

The fact of the matter is, that an illegal immigrant is BREAKING THE LAW. The police have the right/authority to arrest and let the Feds sort it out.

Rick

Being in the country illegally is a CIVIL offense under US immigration law, not a CRIMINAL offense. People are not jailed for civil offenses. Arizona has made it a criminal offense and I don't see where they have the authority to do such a thing.

Prove what you're saying. I don't think it's a civil offense. If it was, the Federal Immigration officials could not detain any illegal immigrants. Please show me where you get that being an illegal immigrant is a civil offense. It is an arrestable offense. I work for a company that gets raided by ICE just about every year and ANY illegals are arrested.

Rick

 

[tigerbob]

I'm honestly not sure if you all are being intentionally contrary, or you really don't understand the point of "innocent until proven guilty".

The only reason a policeman would have an opportunity to arrest someone for driving without a license is if they had committed another crime, like speeding, and the policeman noticed the lack of a driver's license. Thus the lack of a Driver's license is not assumed until evidence exists of it's lack.

In this case, guilt is assumed, and the suspects must prove that they are not guilty, rather than the onus being on the arresting officer to provide justification for the original suspicion.

In addition, the police are forced to make such rash judgements, or face fines for not "correctly" enforcing the law.

Innocent until proven guilty has NOTHING to do with being arrested. It has to do with a court of law. A police officer has the authority to arrest and let the judge and jury deem innocence or guilt.

The fact of the matter is, that an illegal immigrant is BREAKING THE LAW. The police have the right/authority to arrest and let the Feds sort it out.

Rick

Being in the country illegally is a CIVIL offense under US immigration law, not a CRIMINAL offense. People are not jailed for civil offenses. Arizona has made it a criminal offense and I don't see where they have the authority to do such a thing.

You can be jailed for up to a year for a misdemeanor.

 

[Ravi]

Innocent until proven guilty has NOTHING to do with being arrested. It has to do with a court of law. A police officer has the authority to arrest and let the judge and jury deem innocence or guilt.

The fact of the matter is, that an illegal immigrant is BREAKING THE LAW. The police have the right/authority to arrest and let the Feds sort it out.

Rick

Being in the country illegally is a CIVIL offense under US immigration law, not a CRIMINAL offense. People are not jailed for civil offenses. Arizona has made it a criminal offense and I don't see where they have the authority to do such a thing.

Prove what you're saying. I don't think it's a civil offense. If it was, the Federal Immigration officials could not detain any illegal immigrants. Please show me where you get that being an illegal immigrant is a civil offense. It is an arrestable offense. I work for a company that gets raided by ICE just about every year and ANY illegals are arrested.

Rick

Legal Implications: Living in the United States illegally -- either by sneaking in or by overstaying a visa -- is a violation under the civil code, not the criminal code. However, illegal immigrants can be incarcerated as part of the deportation process. Sneaking across the border is currently a criminal misdemeanor that can result in six months in prison.

Q&A: Inside the Immigration Debate : NPR

ICE may detain them and keep them in federal immigration camps awaiting their deportation hearing. Because they are breaking a FEDERAL civil law (only if they get caught in the act of crossing the border is it a CRIMINAL act).

The states do not run FEDERAL immigration camps...so where are the people picked up going to be put while they await their hearing?

 

[Ravi]

Innocent until proven guilty has NOTHING to do with being arrested. It has to do with a court of law. A police officer has the authority to arrest and let the judge and jury deem innocence or guilt.

The fact of the matter is, that an illegal immigrant is BREAKING THE LAW. The police have the right/authority to arrest and let the Feds sort it out.

Rick

Being in the country illegally is a CIVIL offense under US immigration law, not a CRIMINAL offense. People are not jailed for civil offenses. Arizona has made it a criminal offense and I don't see where they have the authority to do such a thing.

You can be jailed for up to a year for a misdemeanor.

Not without a trial. And not for a civil misdemeanor.

 

[hboats]

Being in the country illegally is a CIVIL offense under US immigration law, not a CRIMINAL offense. People are not jailed for civil offenses. Arizona has made it a criminal offense and I don't see where they have the authority to do such a thing.

Prove what you're saying. I don't think it's a civil offense. If it was, the Federal Immigration officials could not detain any illegal immigrants. Please show me where you get that being an illegal immigrant is a civil offense. It is an arrestable offense. I work for a company that gets raided by ICE just about every year and ANY illegals are arrested.

Rick

Legal Implications: Living in the United States illegally -- either by sneaking in or by overstaying a visa -- is a violation under the civil code, not the criminal code. However, illegal immigrants can be incarcerated as part of the deportation process. Sneaking across the border is currently a criminal misdemeanor that can result in six months in prison.

Q&A: Inside the Immigration Debate : NPR

ICE may detain them and keep them in federal immigration camps awaiting their deportation hearing. Because they are breaking a FEDERAL civil law (only if they get caught in the act of crossing the border is it a CRIMINAL act).

The states do not run FEDERAL immigration camps...so where are the people picked up going to be put while they await their hearing?

I will ask you one more time, did you read the bill?????????????????? It clearly says that the police will contact the Federal Immigration authorities and it will be up to them what to do with the person detained.

Why don't you actually inform yourself and READ THE BILL?

Rick

 

[hboats]

Being in the country illegally is a CIVIL offense under US immigration law, not a CRIMINAL offense. People are not jailed for civil offenses. Arizona has made it a criminal offense and I don't see where they have the authority to do such a thing.

You can be jailed for up to a year for a misdemeanor.

Not without a trial. And not for a civil misdemeanor.

So no one is jailed while awaiting trial?

Rick

 

[tigerbob]

Being in the country illegally is a CIVIL offense under US immigration law, not a CRIMINAL offense. People are not jailed for civil offenses. Arizona has made it a criminal offense and I don't see where they have the authority to do such a thing.

You can be jailed for up to a year for a misdemeanor.

Not without a trial. And not for a civil misdemeanor.

I can't understand why being in the country illegally is considered to be about the same as getting a speeding ticket. Nobody goes out for a walk one morning and accidentally steps over the border for a moment.

"America???? Sorry officer I didn't see the sign."

 

[Ravi]

You can be jailed for up to a year for a misdemeanor.

Not without a trial. And not for a civil misdemeanor.

I can't understand why being in the country illegally is considered to be about the same as getting a speeding ticket. Nobody goes out for a walk one morning and accidentally steps over the border for a moment.

"America???? Sorry officer I didn't see the sign."

Because it is a victimless crime.

 

[hboats]

Not without a trial. And not for a civil misdemeanor.

I can't understand why being in the country illegally is considered to be about the same as getting a speeding ticket. Nobody goes out for a walk one morning and accidentally steps over the border for a moment.

"America???? Sorry officer I didn't see the sign."

Because it is a victimless crime.

It is? Tell that to the 300 NEW employees in Iowa that were kept from working by illegal immigrants holding jobs that they wanted. There was a line of people waiting for interviews for the openings for these jobs that were vacated by illegal immigrants. There is no "victimless crime," that's just the criminal's way of justifying their crimes.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...D-fraud-lead-to-largest-raid-in-state-history

Rick

 

[Samson]

Not without a trial. And not for a civil misdemeanor.

I can't understand why being in the country illegally is considered to be about the same as getting a speeding ticket. Nobody goes out for a walk one morning and accidentally steps over the border for a moment.

"America???? Sorry officer I didn't see the sign."

Because it is a victimless crime.

Just Like Prostitution.

 

[tigerbob]

Not without a trial. And not for a civil misdemeanor.

I can't understand why being in the country illegally is considered to be about the same as getting a speeding ticket. Nobody goes out for a walk one morning and accidentally steps over the border for a moment.

"America???? Sorry officer I didn't see the sign."

Because it is a victimless crime.

Is that what you really think or is it just the best you could come up with?

 

[Hamlet]

There's something wrong with that? If the person has their identification on them there won't be a problem.

Do you drive without your drivers license? Do you know that if you get pulled over without it, you too can get arrested? What's the difference?

Rick

The difference is that if you are driving, and don't have a license then you are guilty of the crime of driving without a license....

...Not guilty of not having an ID.

The difference is that if you are living in the US, and don't have a license then you are guilty of the crime of living in the U.S. without a license....

...Not guilty of not having an ID.

I wasn't aware that anyone had to have license to live in the US.

 

[Ringel05]

Actually under existing law it's called 'probable cause'.

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Considering the fact there is an estimated 400K + illegals in AZ alone, which is in fact a crime (being illegal), opens the probable cause option in dealing with the issue. I.e. number of potential illegals in a specific area = possibility that a larger than normal number are potentially committing a crime, in this instance the FEDERAL crime of being in this country illegally.
The feds aren't doing their job leaving the individual states to find their own solutions to the problem.

And... in this case, what praytell constitutes "probable cause"?

Brown skin. He's saying that since it is possible that your random brown-skinned person is illegal then the cops have a right to harass anyone with brown skin.

Sorry that you see the need to emotionalize this Ravi. If you are stopped for speeding by a cop is that officer doing his duty or harassing you? He/she is doing their duty. Logically the vast number of illegals in this area are brown skinned, to identify illegals what is the most logical search group, brown skinned people.
We as a nation have had to do some extraordinary thing to deal with extraordinary issues in the past. Some time those solutions resulted in a serious over reaction and draconian approach - WWII Japanese/American internment and prior to that the forced sterilization of 'defective' individuals.
This doesn't even show on the radar in comparison and besides which, whether I agree with it or not it, (to me), appears to be fall under the legal admissibility of the 4th Amendment.

 

[Hamlet]

You all are just pissed because even your own party is coming out against Arizona. Has JD weighed in on it yet? I see ignorant McCain is all for it.

Why do you have such a problem with it? The illegal beaners have brought it on themselves by not obeying the law. It seems they could get some sort of work visa or whatever to be here legally although on a temporary basis.

Why is it that minorities have the privilege of thumbing their nosees at the law of the land?
Do they simply shout King's X when they are caught breaking the law and cry persecution?

I can see where stereotyping might be a problem but what is the alternative, waiting for them to voluntarily give themselves up?

 

[Vast LWC]

its nearly impossible to reason with LWC on this one...he has done nothing but distort this bill...he cites sections that supposedly back him up and they do nothing of the kind...for instance...he claimed a section supported the DUTY when it said "MAY"

The passage, by itself, does in fact say "may", but when combined with the separate passage that dictates rules on what citizens should do if they find a policeman not arresting people, the "may" becomes "shall".

I am not trying to deceive anyone here. This is my honest interpretation of the law.

Obviously I am not a lawyer, but I'm usually pretty decent at sifting through legalese.

 

[Ravi]

I can't understand why being in the country illegally is considered to be about the same as getting a speeding ticket. Nobody goes out for a walk one morning and accidentally steps over the border for a moment.

"America???? Sorry officer I didn't see the sign."

Because it is a victimless crime.

Just Like Prostitution.

Pretty much. Unless it is forced, of course. But that would fall under slavery.