I Don't Understand Anyone Who Opposes The New Law

[Mike Mitrosky]

Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....

But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...

I dont care about racial profiling at all.. But I do care about violation of peoples' rights.

Even though I like the premise of the Arizona law, I cannot support it because it is unconstitutional. Im a caucasian male, and yet the law could theoretically have me arrested for failing to produce my papers even if Im minding my own business walking down a public sidewalk.

Are you saying federal immigration law is unconstitutional? Just point ot one aspect of Arizona law that in your opinion is unconstitutional.


I willing to bet you haven't read the bill.

There are plenty of federal laws which are unconstitutional,,90% of what the federal govt does is unconstitutional, so I doubt immigration would be any different.

I read the original law. But the new one with the changes I havent yet. I just saw the link now.

 

[Nate]

It seems some people have come on here to bitch about how anti american this law is without knowing anything about it, come on people knowing is half the battle!!!

1. Will SB1070 force police to racially profile?

SB1070 says police cannot solely consider race, color or national origin.

It also says officers can only ask during a valid traffic stop or an investigation with probable cause.

In short, for those who say it allows officers to profile... it doesn't.

2. Will you need to prove that you are a U.S. citizen if you are stopped?

The bill is clear, if you're a U.S. citizen you need local, state or federally issued identification, like a driver's license.

If you're a naturalized citizen you need your green card or proof of citizenship. But that's already required by the U.S. government, not Arizona.

So do you need proof? Yes.

3. Another concern is if SB1070 will cost governments and taxpayers.

The law will require every officer to be trained. The governor just ordered it.

There will also be extra costs for prosectuing, transporting and jailing suspects.

How much? Police and correction departments are still figuring that out, but it will cost us.

4. Other issues have come up about if the bill is constitutional and if it "mirrors" federal law.

The bill is based on U.S. statutes and gives Arizona police the power that federal officers have.

It's not a new idea. In 1996, the U.S. trained local officers to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program.

This bill is a bigger extension of that program.

Is federal immigration law different from Arizona's new law? - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com

Read the actual bill and not somebody's explanation of the bill. Go to the 2nd page and read lines 20-22... Thats where I have a problem with it.

Like I said.. a citizen was already arrested for showing his DL but not having his birth certificate.. and thats without the law even technically taking effect yet. If you want to see the video.. Ill be happy to show you

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

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

Whats wrong with it? Especially line 22, if the person doesn't speak a lick of english and has no proof of identification on him then I see nothing wrong with police taking extra steps to prove he/she is legal to be in our country. As someone has already pointed out on this thread just because they use the term "papers" doesn't mean they have to track down a carbon copy of the the person's naturalization papers.
As for the rest of your post, are you talking about the Trucker?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE

I am going to guess....you are not Hispanic. You wont be pulled over and asked for paperz.....

OH and did you know our gov is asking Palin for idea's on how to change our image. Palin!

Remember the MLK Birthday celebration thing a few years ago?

MLK? Here's another example of leftwing idiocy. They can't argue the merits of the AZ bill so they bring up something that happened over 20 years ago.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I dont care about racial profiling at all.. But I do care about violation of peoples' rights.

Even though I like the premise of the Arizona law, I cannot support it because it is unconstitutional. Im a caucasian male, and yet the law could theoretically have me arrested for failing to produce my papers even if Im minding my own business walking down a public sidewalk.

Are you saying federal immigration law is unconstitutional? Just point ot one aspect of Arizona law that in your opinion is unconstitutional.


I willing to bet you haven't read the bill.

There are plenty of federal laws which are unconstitutional,,90% of what the federal govt does is unconstitutional, so I doubt immigration would be any different.

I read the original law. But the new one with the changes I havent yet. I just saw the link now.

Be specific, what is unconstitutional about the Federal immigration law?

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

[

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

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

Whats wrong with it? Especially line 22, if the person doesn't speak a lick of english and has no proof of identification on him then I see nothing wrong with police taking extra steps to prove he/she is legal to be in our country. As someone has already pointed out on this thread just because they use the term "papers" doesn't mean they have to track down a carbon copy of the the person's naturalization papers.
As for the rest of your post, are you talking about the Trucker?

Well, because basically for any lawful contact you need probable cause.. Reasonable suspicion is some subjective misnomer. To me, anything is unreasonable unless somebody has a warrant.

Who decides whats unreasonable? The police... no good.. and no matter how many people can justify it; its still a violation..

Now perhaps this has changed in the new law; perhaps not. Ill have to go thru it...

But I dont let people tell me its legal just because they want to see the illegals go home anymore than I let people tell me its ILLegal because theyre offended by racial profiling.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Are you saying federal immigration law is unconstitutional? Just point ot one aspect of Arizona law that in your opinion is unconstitutional.


I willing to bet you haven't read the bill.

There are plenty of federal laws which are unconstitutional,,90% of what the federal govt does is unconstitutional, so I doubt immigration would be any different.

I read the original law. But the new one with the changes I havent yet. I just saw the link now.

Be specific, what is unconstitutional about the Federal immigration law?

I havent read any federal immigration laws so I wouldnt be able to tell you. I can only tell you whats unconstitutional about SB1070.

 

[Nate]

There are plenty of federal laws which are unconstitutional,,90% of what the federal govt does is unconstitutional, so I doubt immigration would be any different.

I read the original law. But the new one with the changes I havent yet. I just saw the link now.

Be specific, what is unconstitutional about the Federal immigration law?

I havent read any federal immigration laws so I wouldnt be able to tell you. I can only tell you whats unconstitutional about SB1070.

Well here ya go then, this may help you out a bit;

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is “no extant federal limitation” on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.28

Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous or erratic behavior, dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship, and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.29 Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer’s consent to enter work places or residences.30

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens

Any of the bolded area sound familiar?

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Be specific, what is unconstitutional about the Federal immigration law?

I havent read any federal immigration laws so I wouldnt be able to tell you. I can only tell you whats unconstitutional about SB1070.

Well here ya go then, this may help you out a bit;

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is “no extant federal limitation” on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.28

Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous or erratic behavior, dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship, and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.29 Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer’s consent to enter work places or residences.30

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens

Any of the bolded area sound familiar?

No, they dont. But all that bold-faced type looks unconstitutional to me.

That being said.... Im reading the amended SB1070, and so far so good. They got rid of my problem with the original bill and even the section 6 problem of a cop arresting without a warrant...

Im almost done reading it.

 

[GHook93]

Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....

But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...

Legal Mexicans who will be asked for their paperz. They will look just as illegal until they produce them and that is not the America I know.

Hey Liberal Facist, you and I as white Americans can be asked for identification at any time if the police things we are committing a crime. Guess what we are required to identify ourselves with identification, mostly a driver's license or State ID card. It is no different for Legal Latino Americans in Mexico. If they are stopped all they need to show is their ID card or driver's license, just like you or I, they need to care legal identification at all times.

A requirement for a Green card holder is that they carry their greencard at all times.

So what does this law do! Requires people to carry identification! Face who doesn't carry identification on them? People up to NO good!

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE

Hey thanks again for your link on the updated text.. Im no longer against this law as it now appears all changes have made it constitutional...

The only technical 'problem' I have with it is here:

E. Notwithstanding any other law, in the enforcement of this section a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.

"Reasonable suspicion" should technically be probable cause.. But in this case its moot, because even under the auspices of 'probable cause' a cop can always pull you over and just claim you were swerving, or your taillight was out, etc.

I dont see anyway around this regardless.

 

[Care4all]

Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....

But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...

Legal Mexicans who will be asked for their paperz. They will look just as illegal until they produce them and that is not the America I know.

Hey Liberal Facist, you and I as white Americans can be asked for identification at any time if the police things we are committing a crime. Guess what we are required to identify ourselves with identification, mostly a driver's license or State ID card. It is no different for Legal Latino Americans in Mexico. If they are stopped all they need to show is their ID card or driver's license, just like you or I, they need to care legal identification at all times.

A requirement for a Green card holder is that they carry their greencard at all times.

So what does this law do! Requires people to carry identification! Face who doesn't carry identification on them? People up to NO good!

NOT TRUE Gh!

No citizen walking on the street is REQUIRED to carry identification with them and NO COP can require them to produce id, if walking on the street, if in the zone of an area where a crime was committed or at ANY TIME....

the cop CAN REQUIRE YOU TO GIVE YOUR name.....that's it????

Why are you saying that a cop can require ID from us?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There are plenty of federal laws which are unconstitutional,,90% of what the federal govt does is unconstitutional, so I doubt immigration would be any different.

I read the original law. But the new one with the changes I havent yet. I just saw the link now.

Be specific, what is unconstitutional about the Federal immigration law?

I havent read any federal immigration laws so I wouldnt be able to tell you. I can only tell you whats unconstitutional about SB1070.

SB1070 mirrors federal law. But please do tell what you find unconstitutional with SB1070.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I havent read any federal immigration laws so I wouldnt be able to tell you. I can only tell you whats unconstitutional about SB1070.

Well here ya go then, this may help you out a bit;

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is “no extant federal limitation” on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.28

Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous or erratic behavior, dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship, and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.29 Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer’s consent to enter work places or residences.30

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens

Any of the bolded area sound familiar?

No, they dont. But all that bold-faced type looks unconstitutional to me.

That being said.... Im reading the amended SB1070, and so far so good. They got rid of my problem with the original bill and even the section 6 problem of a cop arresting without a warrant...

Im almost done reading it.

Looks unconstitutional?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You cannot be serious!

Let me refer to Terry v Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop; some states (e.g., Colorado) require that a person detained provide additional information, but as of April 2010, the validity of such additional obligations has not come before the Supreme Court.

Although U.S. Customs can do routine suspicionless searches of people and effects crossing the border (including passing through airport customs), non-routine searches, like slashing the spare tire of a car, require reasonable suspicion. United States v. Flores-Montano. Anything even more intrusive, like compelled surgery of a suspected balloon swallower, requires probable cause. United States v. Montoya De Hernandez.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Well here ya go then, this may help you out a bit;

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens

Any of the bolded area sound familiar?

No, they dont. But all that bold-faced type looks unconstitutional to me.

That being said.... Im reading the amended SB1070, and so far so good. They got rid of my problem with the original bill and even the section 6 problem of a cop arresting without a warrant...

Im almost done reading it.

Looks unconstitutional?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You cannot be serious!

Okay how about definitely, 100% unequivocally unconstitutional!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Legal Mexicans who will be asked for their paperz. They will look just as illegal until they produce them and that is not the America I know.

Hey Liberal Facist, you and I as white Americans can be asked for identification at any time if the police things we are committing a crime. Guess what we are required to identify ourselves with identification, mostly a driver's license or State ID card. It is no different for Legal Latino Americans in Mexico. If they are stopped all they need to show is their ID card or driver's license, just like you or I, they need to care legal identification at all times.

A requirement for a Green card holder is that they carry their greencard at all times.

So what does this law do! Requires people to carry identification! Face who doesn't carry identification on them? People up to NO good!

NOT TRUE Gh!

No citizen walking on the street is REQUIRED to carry identification with them and NO COP can require them to produce id, if walking on the street, if in the zone of an area where a crime was committed or at ANY TIME....

the cop CAN REQUIRE YOU TO GIVE YOUR name.....that's it????

Why are you saying that a cop can require ID from us?

You are correct that you do not have to provide an ID, but be prepared to suffer the consequences. Which would more than likely be detainment until you can be properly identified.

It should be noted that you could be arrested for hindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice. See Terry v Ohio.

 

[SCSO19]

Being in this country illegal is ..well..ILLEGAL i understand a legal hispanic citizen might be offended if they are asked to show proof. However this illegal problem is getting out of hand...we welcome anyone from any country...just do it legally, learn english and get your papers. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop or something EVERYONE is asked to show i.d so i dont see any problem with having a law against checking papers for any reason. Get over it

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, they dont. But all that bold-faced type looks unconstitutional to me.

That being said.... Im reading the amended SB1070, and so far so good. They got rid of my problem with the original bill and even the section 6 problem of a cop arresting without a warrant...

Im almost done reading it.

Looks unconstitutional?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You cannot be serious!

Okay how about definitely, 100% unequivocally unconstitutional!

Well you can say it all day long but you haven't provided anything to support your claim of unconstitutionality.

How about some specifics or some case history?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Being in this country illegal is ..well..ILLEGAL i understand a legal hispanic citizen might be offended if they are asked to show proof. However this illegal problem is getting out of hand...we welcome anyone from any country...just do it legally, learn english and get your papers. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop or something EVERYONE is asked to show i.d so i dont see any problem with having a law against checking papers for any reason. Get over it

It's quite obvious that none of these idiots have ever been out of the US.

 

[Nate]

Looks unconstitutional?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You cannot be serious!

Okay how about definitely, 100% unequivocally unconstitutional!

Well you can say it all day long but you haven't provided anything to support your claim of unconstitutionality.

How about some specifics or some case history?

Took the words right out of my mouth Lonestar. Instead of just saying "it's unconstitutional" Mike why not provide some proof as to why it's unconstitutional.

 

[Angelhair]

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
__________________
A warrant has to be ISSUED!!! And by whom? A JUDGE calls it! The cops in AZ are not going to be given a search warrant carte blanche! Geez people, CHILL.

Search warrant, in law, written order by an official of a court authorizing an officer to search in a specified place for specified objects and to seize them if found. The objects sought may be stolen goods or physical evidences of the commission of crime (e.g., narcotics). The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, provides, in effect, that a search warrant may be issued only on oath or affirmation that a crime was probably committed. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961) the U.S. Supreme Court mandated states to exclude from trial evidence obtained in illegal searches, such as those without a proper warrant. This exclusionary rule has been the subject of great controversy and subsequent litigation. In recent years, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the rule, in many circumstances permitting the introduction of any evidence gathered in good faith. Courts have ruled that a wiretap and the use of a thermal-imaging device to examine a private home from a public street constitutes a search that requires a warrant. Warrants are not required for the gathering of evidence in some circumstances. These exceptions include evidence gathered after a lawful arrest, inspections by customs or border officials, searches made with the suspect's consent, searches of items in plain view, and searches of the belongings of secondary students on school property.
The Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 2001-09 Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.