See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

 

[Brubricker]

If Arizona feels that their law is in compliance with federal law then they should seek formal certification from the Dept. of Homeland Security which would give them that seal of approval. It's a document called a Memorandum of Agreement. Arizona has actively resisted the MOA process. All the other states obtain MOA's but for some unknown reason AZ refuses. Why won't Arizona try to gain formal certification saying they're in compliance with federal law? Everyone else does. Why won't they?

 

[Ravi]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

Mexicans = terrorists?

 

[The Infidel]

Mexicans = terrorists?

Seen thru the eyes of an idiot

 

[Ravi]

Mexicans = terrorists?

Seen thru the eyes of an idiot

That's not a nice thing to say about PP.

 

[bucs90]

If Arizona feels that their law is in compliance with federal law then they should seek formal certification from the Dept. of Homeland Security which would give them that seal of approval. It's a document called a Memorandum of Agreement. Arizona has actively resisted the MOA process. All the other states obtain MOA's but for some unknown reason AZ refuses. Why won't Arizona try to gain formal certification saying they're in compliance with federal law? Everyone else does. Why won't they?

#1 the feds won't approve it.

#2 all they are doing is detaining someone for a federal crime and handing them to ICE. Same way local cops detained two Egyptians in Goose Creek, SC, for federal terrorism suspicion and handed them to the FBI.

#3- Georgia and Oklahoma, at their most recent application, were denied the same MOA Rhode Island got. Why? They have a lot of illegals, RI doesn't.

 

[bucs90]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

Mexicans = terrorists?

Illegal aliens violated federal law.
Terrorists violated federal law.
Bernie Madoff violated federal law.

Local cops can detain all three to be handed over to proper federal authorities if caught in act of violating the federal law.

 

[Brubricker]

If Arizona feels that their law is in compliance with federal law then they should seek formal certification from the Dept. of Homeland Security which would give them that seal of approval. It's a document called a Memorandum of Agreement. Arizona has actively resisted the MOA process. All the other states obtain MOA's but for some unknown reason AZ refuses. Why won't Arizona try to gain formal certification saying they're in compliance with federal law? Everyone else does. Why won't they?

#1 the feds won't approve it.

Arizona hasn't even applied yet. If they're serious they have to at least TRY.

#2 all they are doing is detaining someone for a federal crime and handing them to ICE. Same way local cops detained two Egyptians in Goose Creek, SC, for federal terrorism suspicion and handed them to the FBI.

Get an MOA and it's all fine. When you don't even try to get one you're not acting legitimately. The formal process is there. If Arizona is serious about their talk then all they have to do is start the ball rolling on this process.

#3- Georgia and Oklahoma, at their most recent application, were denied the same MOA Rhode Island got.

Gotta link that says that?

 

[ABikerSailor]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

First, they let their cops do their jobs and follow leads.

Second, they ALREADY knew that this was probably the work of a terrorist and figured that the person they caught would be from somewhere else (McVeigh types are rare), so therefore, they didn't have to pass a law to ensure that their cops always asked citizenship questions of someone they perceived to be not from here.

New York cops wait until an actual crime occurs, AZ cops don't.

Ever see the movie "Minority Report"?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

First, they let their cops do their jobs and follow leads.

Second, they ALREADY knew that this was probably the work of a terrorist and figured that the person they caught would be from somewhere else (McVeigh types are rare), so therefore, they didn't have to pass a law to ensure that their cops always asked citizenship questions of someone they perceived to be not from here.

New York cops wait until an actual crime occurs, AZ cops don't.

Ever see the movie "Minority Report"?

Prove it\

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

There is the bill. Show me where in the bill it gives the police the authority to question anyone without a law being broken first.

I'll be here when you realize your wrong.

 

[R.C. Christian]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

Mexicans = terrorists?

In this age any group can be labeled a terrorist. Look at the tea party for example. The liberal dogs are working overtime to create that association in the dumb american public's feeble brains.

 

[R.C. Christian]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

First, they let their cops do their jobs and follow leads.

Second, they ALREADY knew that this was probably the work of a terrorist and figured that the person they caught would be from somewhere else (McVeigh types are rare), so therefore, they didn't have to pass a law to ensure that their cops always asked citizenship questions of someone they perceived to be not from here.

New York cops wait until an actual crime occurs, AZ cops don't.

Ever see the movie "Minority Report"?

Prove it\

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

There is the bill. Show me where in the bill it gives the police the authority to question anyone without a law being broken first.

I'll be here when you realize your wrong.

Actually, you don't have to commit a crime to be questioned or detained. Only a reasonable suspicion is required. See Terry Stop. I'd say if you're an illegal and you're hanging out on the street or just plain loitering you'd better be really damn careful in AZ.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

First, they let their cops do their jobs and follow leads.

Second, they ALREADY knew that this was probably the work of a terrorist and figured that the person they caught would be from somewhere else (McVeigh types are rare), so therefore, they didn't have to pass a law to ensure that their cops always asked citizenship questions of someone they perceived to be not from here.

New York cops wait until an actual crime occurs, AZ cops don't.

Ever see the movie "Minority Report"?

Prove it\

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

There is the bill. Show me where in the bill it gives the police the authority to question anyone without a law being broken first.

I'll be here when you realize your wrong.

Actually, you don't have to commit a crime to be questioned or detained. Only a reasonable suspicion is required. See Terry Stop. I'd say if you're an illegal and you're hanging out on the street or just plain loitering you'd better be really damn careful in AZ.

Actually, according to the bill, you must commit a non-immigration related crime before the police have the authority to question your immigration status

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE 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. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

The phrase "lawful contact" defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he has broken a law. The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.

 

[Flopper]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

There is no parallel. Arizona passed an immigration law that is clearly unconstitutional and now seeks to enforce that law independently of the feds. The NYPD worked with the feds to enforce existing law.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Prove it\

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

There is the bill. Show me where in the bill it gives the police the authority to question anyone without a law being broken first.

I'll be here when you realize your wrong.

Actually, you don't have to commit a crime to be questioned or detained. Only a reasonable suspicion is required. See Terry Stop. I'd say if you're an illegal and you're hanging out on the street or just plain loitering you'd better be really damn careful in AZ.

Actually, according to the bill, you must commit a non-immigration related crime before the police have the authority to question your immigration status

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE 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. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

The phrase "lawful contact" defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he has broken a law. The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.

Exactly, but there are a mulitude of reasons a cop could use or invent in order to do that. The propensity for profiling, which they already do despite what they say, is very, very high. I guarantee you that ordinances on loitering, too many cars in the yard, sound ordinance complaints etc. will rise sharply and result in a lot of deportation. And while those kind of violations are very petty, and pathetic excuses to detain and question someone they may well be the best tools law enforcement can use to enforce this law.

 

[Bfgrn]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

WOW, what an ignorant pea brain...

Educate yourself...

The Crime Report Archive Top Cop: Arizona Immigration Law Puts Police in "Precarious Position"

The bill will adversely affect public safety. It will incline immigrant communities to distrust the police, and further alienate immigrant and minority communities from law enforcement agencies and officers in Arizona. Victims of crimes such as domestic violence and assault will be reluctant to contact the police if they fear such contact will lead to investigations into the immigration status of the victim, of family members and neighbors, or of other persons close to the victim―perhaps leading to their detention and deportation.

The alienation between police and communities that we can reasonably expect will result from the law will occur not only where the victim of the crime is undocumented, but also in a great many other cases. This is because many households and communities are made up of individuals with varying immigration status, and frequently include at least one individual who is a U.S. citizen or an authorized immigrant. Therefore, out of fear of deportation of a family member or neighbor, many crime victims who are documented immigrants or U.S. citizens will decide not to contact the police.

This problem with the law was not cured by the amended language that relieves officers of the duty to inquire into immigration status if such inquiry would hinder or obstruct an investigation. Quite simply, the law sends an overriding message to immigrant communities: avoid law enforcement officers because it is presumed that they will be inquiring about immigration status. Minor nuances and exceptions in the law’s language will not affect this over-arching message.

Serious Consequences

The consequences are serious for both crime victims and law enforcement.

Police investigations will be impeded by the lack of information that could help them solve crime. And it will have an impact on public safety not only for immigrant communities, but all communities in the state of Arizona. It will create a vacuum in law enforcement, and criminals will be emboldened because they will have less reason to be concerned about being reported by victims or witnesses in immigrant communities, and less reason to fear any consequences for their criminal conduct.


I cannot overstate the critical importance of victim and witness cooperation in solving crimes and anything that diminishes that cooperation should be rejected.

The Arizona law also gives a right to sue to anyone who believes that a particular police department is not vigorously enforcing federal immigration law. To avoid lawsuits, police departments will likely expend significant time, money and other resources to head off the filing of these lawsuits and defending themselves against claimed failures to take appropriate actions. This puts police departments and individual police officers in an untenable position.

Danger of Racial Profiling

The criminal provisions of this law would be extremely difficult to enforce in a race-neutral manner. When police officers attempt to determine whether an individual they encounter on patrol is in the United States illegally, as the bill requires, they will likely rely upon race and ethnicity as factors in establishing reasonable suspicion to investigate potential violations. As a practical matter, even the amended language, which prohibits consideration of race, color or national origin, will not prevent the improper use of race or ethnicity.

Short of directly observing an individual actually crossing the border in a surreptitious manner, there are not reliable indicators that would give rise to a reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is unlawfully in the United States. In good conscience, we should not be putting police officers in this precarious position.

There will also be a greater incidence of pretextual stops of individuals of color in Arizona, as officers under pressure to comply with the law will use pretextual reasons to stop or question individuals they believe to be in this country illegally. [ED NOTE: pretextual refers to the legal ability of a police officer to question a suspect about matters not related to the specific reasons he or she was detained]

If an officer is motivated by race or ethnicity he or she can easily find a valid pretext for encountering an individual, whether by following a car until a minor traffic violation occurs or by approaching a pedestrian for “consensual” questioning. Consequently, the law permits, and inevitably makes more likely, the disparate treatment of Latinos and other persons of color. For example, when police receive a complaint about excessive noise by a neighbor, they may be more likely to interrogate residents of the home about their immigration status if they are Latino than if they are white. Such disparities in law enforcement based on race and ethnicity also will almost certainly lead to greater legal liabilities for police agencies.

Taking all of these considerable defects into account, I can only conclude that Arizona’s law is extremely harmful for the state’s local police departments. It undermines public safety by causing communities to distrust the police; it diverts resources from the goal of ensuring public safety and it discourages victims from coming forward. It will also likely lead to racial profiling, and thus subject local agencies to litigation.

 

[R.C. Christian]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Horace Cooper

After a bomb was recently discovered in a smoking Nissan SUV in Times Square, America watched anxiously as city, state, and federal authorities investigated.

In just 53 hours, law enforcement and national security teams working together successfully apprehended the terrorist — Pakistani born émigré Faisal Shahzad. His dramatic capture off a Dubai-bound airliner just moments before it took flight seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than real-life.

Amazingly, this potentially devastating terror act ended almost as quickly as it began.

Here is the takeaway: it was New York City beat cops working with street vendors, along with the FBI and the CIA, which produced the correct outcome. No one was hurt, and the suspected terrorist was apprehended.

Yet when Arizona — after years of skyrocketing crime from smugglers and drug traffickers — attempts an almost identical type of collaboration, East and West Coast elites react with vitriol.

The issues are so similar it is truly curious that no one has managed to put them together before now. Unless their agenda is purely political, critics of Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute should also logically attack New York. After all, why should New York be allowed to tread on federal government authority when critics say it is wrong for Arizona to do so?

WOW, what an ignorant pea brain...

Educate yourself...

The Crime Report Archive Top Cop: Arizona Immigration Law Puts Police in "Precarious Position"

The bill will adversely affect public safety. It will incline immigrant communities to distrust the police, and further alienate immigrant and minority communities from law enforcement agencies and officers in Arizona. Victims of crimes such as domestic violence and assault will be reluctant to contact the police if they fear such contact will lead to investigations into the immigration status of the victim, of family members and neighbors, or of other persons close to the victim―perhaps leading to their detention and deportation.

The alienation between police and communities that we can reasonably expect will result from the law will occur not only where the victim of the crime is undocumented, but also in a great many other cases. This is because many households and communities are made up of individuals with varying immigration status, and frequently include at least one individual who is a U.S. citizen or an authorized immigrant. Therefore, out of fear of deportation of a family member or neighbor, many crime victims who are documented immigrants or U.S. citizens will decide not to contact the police.

This problem with the law was not cured by the amended language that relieves officers of the duty to inquire into immigration status if such inquiry would hinder or obstruct an investigation. Quite simply, the law sends an overriding message to immigrant communities: avoid law enforcement officers because it is presumed that they will be inquiring about immigration status. Minor nuances and exceptions in the law’s language will not affect this over-arching message.

Serious Consequences

The consequences are serious for both crime victims and law enforcement.

Police investigations will be impeded by the lack of information that could help them solve crime. And it will have an impact on public safety not only for immigrant communities, but all communities in the state of Arizona. It will create a vacuum in law enforcement, and criminals will be emboldened because they will have less reason to be concerned about being reported by victims or witnesses in immigrant communities, and less reason to fear any consequences for their criminal conduct.


I cannot overstate the critical importance of victim and witness cooperation in solving crimes and anything that diminishes that cooperation should be rejected.

The Arizona law also gives a right to sue to anyone who believes that a particular police department is not vigorously enforcing federal immigration law. To avoid lawsuits, police departments will likely expend significant time, money and other resources to head off the filing of these lawsuits and defending themselves against claimed failures to take appropriate actions. This puts police departments and individual police officers in an untenable position.

Danger of Racial Profiling

The criminal provisions of this law would be extremely difficult to enforce in a race-neutral manner. When police officers attempt to determine whether an individual they encounter on patrol is in the United States illegally, as the bill requires, they will likely rely upon race and ethnicity as factors in establishing reasonable suspicion to investigate potential violations. As a practical matter, even the amended language, which prohibits consideration of race, color or national origin, will not prevent the improper use of race or ethnicity.

Short of directly observing an individual actually crossing the border in a surreptitious manner, there are not reliable indicators that would give rise to a reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is unlawfully in the United States. In good conscience, we should not be putting police officers in this precarious position.

There will also be a greater incidence of pretextual stops of individuals of color in Arizona, as officers under pressure to comply with the law will use pretextual reasons to stop or question individuals they believe to be in this country illegally. [ED NOTE: pretextual refers to the legal ability of a police officer to question a suspect about matters not related to the specific reasons he or she was detained]

If an officer is motivated by race or ethnicity he or she can easily find a valid pretext for encountering an individual, whether by following a car until a minor traffic violation occurs or by approaching a pedestrian for “consensual” questioning. Consequently, the law permits, and inevitably makes more likely, the disparate treatment of Latinos and other persons of color. For example, when police receive a complaint about excessive noise by a neighbor, they may be more likely to interrogate residents of the home about their immigration status if they are Latino than if they are white. Such disparities in law enforcement based on race and ethnicity also will almost certainly lead to greater legal liabilities for police agencies.

Taking all of these considerable defects into account, I can only conclude that Arizona’s law is extremely harmful for the state’s local police departments. It undermines public safety by causing communities to distrust the police; it diverts resources from the goal of ensuring public safety and it discourages victims from coming forward. It will also likely lead to racial profiling, and thus subject local agencies to litigation.

This is generally right on most counts, unfortunately, but I think we are at the point that it has to be done. Maybe if we had a federal government that was more interested in immigration law and border enforcement than hispanic vote pandering then it would have never come to this, but it has, and there is plenty of blame to go around.

 

[jillian]

#1 the feds won't approve it.

and yet other states have MOA's with the feds. so that would indicate your presumption is premature at best.

#2 all they are doing is detaining someone for a federal crime and handing them to ICE. Same way local cops detained two Egyptians in Goose Creek, SC, for federal terrorism suspicion and handed them to the FBI.

it's more the process that is the problem... not the result.

#3- Georgia and Oklahoma, at their most recent application, were denied the same MOA Rhode Island got. Why? They have a lot of illegals, RI doesn't.

the intent doesn't necessarily make the proess acceptable. the appropriate question is 'what made them unacceptable"?

 

[jeffrockit]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona




Arizona passed an immigration law that is clearly unconstitutional and now seeks to enforce that law independently of the feds. The NYPD worked with the feds to enforce existing law.

Then the fed law is unconstitutional as the AZ law mirrors federal law. The same fed law that was not being enforced.
These 2 questions have yet to be answered as the correct answer proves the AZ law mirrors the fed law:

1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?

2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does already not place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona

Arizona passed an immigration law that is clearly unconstitutional and now seeks to enforce that law independently of the feds. The NYPD worked with the feds to enforce existing law.

Then the fed law is unconstitutional as the AZ law mirrors federal law. The same fed law that was not being enforced.
These 2 questions have yet to be answered as the correct answer proves the AZ law mirrors the fed law:

1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?

2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does already not place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?

I'm just fixing your quote.....

You guys do realize that I didn't write the OP but its just half the article I read and linked right?