Law that allow profiling already exist

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by LilOlLady, Apr 26, 2010.

  1. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    Law that allows profiling of illegal aliens already exist;

    Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
    Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

    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. 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. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer's consent to enter workplaces or residences.

    One good thing about Arizona passing this bill is that illegal aliens will be leaving Arizona going to other states forcing them to pass the same bill.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
  3. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624

    No one needed a law to permit profiling. The constitutional mandate of "equal protection" is not so anal that each interaction between a resident of the US and anyone remotely connected to any form of government in the US must be contrasted and compared against all others such interactions as they occur before the requisite "equality" can be ascertained. That's preposterous.

    What "equal protection" requires is that similarly situated persons generally receive similar treatment by government. If Arizona cops pulled over the vehicles driven by all males, male drivers might have a case for complaining that they were being treated differently from females.

    But Arizona cops will still be deciding who to stop just as they always have: by using a quick mental snapshot of a vehicle and it's driver and passengers and assessing the possibility of crime. They'll be looking at millions of data points from paint color on the car to time of day to what color shirt the driver is wearing.

    AFTER the cop pulls over the vehicle and asks for the driver's license, registration and insurance, if the cop reasonably suspects crime, he can act (as he always could) to investigate as the law allows.

    The Arizona cop can ask to see the IDs of the driver and the passenger. He can reasonably assess the believability of those IDs, just as he could that fake ID your 15 year old has been trying to score. And he can confiscate fake IDs, no matter what motive he thinks the suspect had for obtaining one. None of this is new law.

    It's the part about detaining members of the public who have no IDs and/or have fake ones that is the rub. Can Arizona cops arrest for possession of a fake ID?

    Well, Arizona law is not my thingy, but it's a third degree felony in Florida.

    Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2009->Ch0322->Section 212 : Online Sunshine

    So what exactly is the carrying on all about? Arizona isn't breaking new ground with this, folks.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Granny
    Offline

    Granny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,133
    Thanks Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Rocky Top, TN
    Ratings:
    +1,265
    I have also heard that the AZ law reflects what is already in federal law. Why would anyone have a fake ID for any reason other than being up to no good - such as underage drinking, being somewhere where they shouldn't be, impersonating someone they are not, etc.

    The truth is, no matter what your race or your national origin, when you have entered this country illegally - you have already committed a crime by breaking federal immigration laws.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2010
  5. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Since an ID is a government workproduct, and government property, manufacture and possession of a fake ID is also counterfeiting. No Secret Service jurisdiction,generally, because an ID is not US currency -- but other law enforcement agencies can arrest for these counterfeiting crimes.
     
  6. Angelhair
    Offline

    Angelhair Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,597
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +153
    AZ knows all of this. Thus the reason why this bill was passed! Do people really believe that it was done overnight??? It was well researched. It will take a long time to try and prove that this bill is unconstitutional OR that the states don't have a right to protect the citizens of their state! If the feds don't do it, then the responsibility falls on the states. Those of you who do not live in a border state and are against this bill, I suggest that you visit one of these states and learn first hand what they have to put up with. Then we can talk.
     
  7. Angelhair
    Offline

    Angelhair Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,597
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +153
    BTW - aren't ALL of us asked for ID when we get pulled over by the police? Aren't ALL of us asked for proof of auto insurance? Aren't ALL of us asked for proof of auto registration? Is this considered racial profiling? Do people really believe that one will be pulled over ONLY because of how they look and the color of their skin? Have you seen how dark the car windows are where you can't even tell the sex, race, or color of someone in the car??? Chill people, CHILL!!!
     
  8. alcibaides
    Offline

    alcibaides Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Um...No. You are not quoting federal law. You are quoting a legal analysis from an anti-imigration website that certain dishonest people have been spreading around the internet. There is a full article on this story here: azcapitoltimes.com/azpolicywonk/2009/10/14/sheriff-joe-a-non-existent-us-law-and-the-next-crime-sweep/

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Sheriff Joe, a non-existent U.S. law and the next crime sweep
    October 14th, 2009

    “You said some nasty things about me. I take it that way.”

    That’s how my conversation with Sheriff Joe started on Oct. 14. He was offended that I had said on television that he was trying to use a non-existent federal law to justify the continuation of his crime-suppression sweeps.

    After watching Arpaio on the Glenn Beck Show and CNN with Rick Sanchez last week, I was somewhat puzzled that he was upset with me particularly. Seems like those two national personalities beat him up quite a bit more than I did. And I was only on a local program, the Horizon Journalists Roundtable.

    Indeed, I had called him out for citing a law that seems to exist only in the minds of anti-illegal immigration groups. In fact, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, the document he has been citing during press conferences and national TV spots has no place in federal code. In other words, it doesn’t exist.

    It all started a week ago when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reconstructed an agreement with local law enforcement that essentially stripped the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office of its power to enforce illegal immigration violations under the 287(g) program. While the new agreement allows Arpaio and other sheriffs to check the immigration status of those who are arrested for other crimes, it was intended to stop him from detaining people on the street to check whether they are in the country illegally.

    After the new 287(g) agreement was struck, Arpaio called a press conference to blast the feds and to say that he would continuing business as usual. In fact, he said he was planning to do another sweep in two weeks. Now, he says he’s going to do the sweep on Friday.

    But during the press conference on Oct. 6 reporters asked Arpaio what authority he would use to continue rounding up illegal immigrants on the streets. He said there are a couple of state laws that permit it and other federal statutes that provide that type of authority. He then passed out a document that he said was a federal law that allows his agency to “detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S.”

    The document Arpaio personally passed out at a press conference and said was federal statute can be found here: azcapitoltimes.com/wp-files/pdfs/section8.pdf

    The document, at first glance, appeared to be taken from a section of U.S. Code. At the top of the page, it listed a title and chapter numbers, as well as references to subsections.

    But about midway through the text, it outlined a set of circumstances that justify such “brief warrantless interrogations,” and that’s where things started to get odd. Here’s an excerpt: “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.”

    Reporter Jeremy Duda brought the document to my attention, and both of us were a skeptical that the federal government would essentially grant authority to interrogate people on the basis of what they were wearing, or their speech patterns. One friend of mine jokingly asked whether a mariachi suit would justify questioning. And what about the reference to an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens? Could that be taken to mean Arizona in general?

    So Jeremy dug a little deeper. He read through the section of code that Arpaio’s document referenced (Section 8, USC 1324). He couldn’t find any citation of that text. He continued searching records, and later asked ICE officials, immigration attorneys and the Department of Justice to clarify whether that was, as Arpaio had said, included in federal law. Everyone said it wasn’t.

    Another editor and I read through actual U.S. code and also couldn’t find any reference to the text of the document Arpaio had handed out. We were perplexed.

    Jeremy followed up with a story on Oct. 7 that outlined these developments, which can be found here: azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2009/10/06/arpaio-blasts-feds-vows-to-continue-immigration-enforcement/

    Then, after our story was published (there was also an item in that afternoon’s Yellow Sheet Report) and a subsequent commentary was written in the East Valley Tribune, Arpaio cited the document as law on both CNN and FOX. Rick Sanchez was incredulous. Perhaps surprisingly, so was Glenn Beck.

    Beck asked Arpaio to point to the specific law. Arpaio replied: “If local law enforcement comes across some people who have an erratic or scared or whatever … they’re worried, and if they have their speech, what they look like - if they look like they just came from another country, we can take care of that situation.”

    Beck asked if that was profiling, and noted that the federal government doesn’t allow profiling.

    Arpaio’s again pointed to the non-existent federal law, saying “It’s in there. It’s in there.”

    On CNN, Arpaio told Sanchez that the revocation of the 287(g) agreement really doesn’t mean anything. He said it was just a contract, but “it’s OK, I’m still going to enforce the human smuggling.”

    Sanchez asked how the sheriff and his deputies know if someone they stop on the street is in the country illegally.

    “It has to do with their conduct, what type of clothes they’re wearing, their speech … a lot of variables involved,” Arpaio said. Questioned further about how clothing can determine a person’s status, Arpaio said, “You look at the federal law. The federal law specifies, the speech the clothes the environment the erratic behavior, it’s right in the law.”

    An online search for the text Arpaio was citing revealed that the document existed - but not in federal code. It was plastered all over the websites of anti-illegal immigration groups.

    One of the groups that had published the text, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, noted that it was only an analysis of federal law and offered a disclaimer that it was not to be used as a substitute for actual legal advice.

    The website showing the overview published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform can be found here: fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersbcdd

    So, this morning when I had a chance to interview Arpaio about all that had occurred, he insisted at first that the document was taken directly from U.S. Code. He said ICE had confirmed that the document was valid.

    But after further discussion about our findings, Arpaio took a step back. He acknowledged that the document might not be part of federal law. He said, “I thought it was a law. I don’t know what you call it.”

    He went on to say that it really doesn’t matter if it’s law or if it’s just an analysis, and said he has plenty of authority to continue the crime-suppression sweeps.

    “I still think there’s a federal law out there that gives me the authority to do this,” he said. “I might not have the right one, but there is one out there.”

    It’s still not clear what will happen when Arpaio attempts to conduct another sweep because ICE officials have been quiet about how they’ll react and Arpaio says he’ll take the illegal immigrants to Border Patrol if he has to.

    “When they (ICE) won’t take them, I’ll take them to Border Patrol,” he said. “So let’s see what happens now. How can you tell Border Patrol that you can’t take them? If mine are illegal and they don’t take them, are they going to take the other ones that they find?”

    We might not have to wait long for the answer; the next sweep is scheduled to happen in two days.

    -----------------------------------
    Sorry. I am not allowed to post links yet, so you may need to fiddle a bit with them to get them to work if you are interested.
     
  9. WhatTheHell2
    Offline

    WhatTheHell2 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    61
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    alcibaides Um...No. You are not quoting federal law. You are quoting a legal analysis from an anti-imigration website that certain dishonest people have been spreading around the internet.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enforcement
    A person or entity having knowledge of a violation or potential violation of employer sanctions provisions may submit a signed written complaint to the INS office with jurisdiction over the business or residence of the potential violator, whether an employer, employee, or agent. The complaint must include the names and addresses of both the complainant and the violator, and detailed factual allegations, including date, time, and place of the potential violation, and the specific conduct alleged to be a violation of employer sanctions. By regulation, the INS will only investigate third-party complaints that have a reasonable probability of validity. Designated INS officers and employees, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws, may make an arrest for violation of smuggling or harboring illegal aliens.



    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. 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. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer's consent to enter workplaces or residences. Any vehicle used to transport or harbor illegal aliens, or used as a substantial part of an activity that encourages illegal aliens to come to or reside in the U.S. may be seized by an immigration officer and is subject to forfeiture. The forfeiture power covers any conveyances used within the U.S.

    Excerpts from Section 8 USC 1324 Law Regarding Hiring of Illegal Aliens
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2010
  10. Bullfighter
    Offline

    Bullfighter BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,164
    Thanks Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +111
    It's all pointless because Mexicans won't follow any American law they don't like.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content

,

what law allows federal law allows racial profiling