If ariz law is “unconstitutional”

LilOlLady

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
945
Points
190
Location
Reno, NV
IF ARIZ LAW IS “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”

Then this is “unconstitutional” and the Constitution is “unconstitutional.”


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

Under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says:
"Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."
 

Yurt

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
25,603
Reaction score
3,603
Points
270
Location
Hot air ballon
do you have a direct link to this law? i can't find it using the citation given
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
It forces Americans to carry proof of citizenship.

Is that constitutional?
 

Yurt

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
25,603
Reaction score
3,603
Points
270
Location
Hot air ballon

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,931
Reaction score
16,985
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
It forces Americans to carry proof of citizenship.

Is that constitutional?

link

i know you're asking for a link to abuse her. but you already know that police in AZ have the right to stop and demand papers from anyone they think *might* be an illegal. that means someone who is a citizen but came from puerto rico would be stopped in AZ. that means that someone who came from mexico but is here legally would be stopped. it means that if i look hispanic (even though i'm not) an officer with a gun would have the right to demand papers. if such papers are demanded and i had nothing (which i wouldn't since i don't walk around with my passport) i could be arrested.

worse... it could be done to the children of people here lawfully who may be citizens.

basically, it allows them to stop you for DWL... (driving while latino).
 

Navy1960

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
5,821
Reaction score
1,322
Points
48
Location
Arizona
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.



2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.



3. Requires an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or local law to be transferred immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.



4. Allows a law enforcement agency to securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is in the agency’s custody to:

a) a federal facility in this state or

b) any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.



5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

SB1070 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet

I really do believe that people should take the time to read the actual bill, rather than the heated talk from both sides before comparing it to Nazi Germany. In fact here in Arizona when you go to get your DL much of this is in place from a proof standpoint. It serves no useful purpose to denegrate those people that wish to come to this nation to build a better life for themselves and also does not serve any purpose to advocate for those that violate current Federal law.

For too long now the Federal Govt. has looked the other way on this issue while both parties played to the voters and were afriad to address the issues of immigraation that few other nations would tolerate including Mexico. The real moral and ethical thing to do for a nation composed of immigrants is to make the process of becoming a citizen well managed anc clear cut and not reward those that go around that process at the expense of those that do not. So rather than talk of how Arizona is like NAzi Germany , which it clearly is not, perhaps the real ire should be directed at an apathetic Federal Govt. both demorat and republican that have thus far failed to address the real issues of immigration reform.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,003
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
IF ARIZ LAW IS “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”

Then this is “unconstitutional” and the Constitution is “unconstitutional.”


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

Under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says:
"Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."

All it says is the state can enforce federal law, please show me where it says it can make up it's own law regarding immigration laws?
And I don't agree with this act one bit, and it doesn't suprise me it was passed by a republican congress. I also don't see how the part that I bolded has been allowed this long.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,003
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.



2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.



3. Requires an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or local law to be transferred immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.



4. Allows a law enforcement agency to securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is in the agency’s custody to:

a) a federal facility in this state or

b) any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.



5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

SB1070 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet

I really do believe that people should take the time to read the actual bill, rather than the heated talk from both sides before comparing it to Nazi Germany. In fact here in Arizona when you go to get your DL much of this is in place from a proof standpoint. It serves no useful purpose to denegrate those people that wish to come to this nation to build a better life for themselves and also does not serve any purpose to advocate for those that violate current Federal law.

For too long now the Federal Govt. has looked the other way on this issue while both parties played to the voters and were afriad to address the issues of immigraation that few other nations would tolerate including Mexico. The real moral and ethical thing to do for a nation composed of immigrants is to make the process of becoming a citizen well managed anc clear cut and not reward those that go around that process at the expense of those that do not. So rather than talk of how Arizona is like NAzi Germany , which it clearly is not, perhaps the real ire should be directed at an apathetic Federal Govt. both demorat and republican that have thus far failed to address the real issues of immigration reform.

One number one, how are they going to establish reasonable cause?
 

Yurt

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
25,603
Reaction score
3,603
Points
270
Location
Hot air ballon
It forces Americans to carry proof of citizenship.

Is that constitutional?

link

i know you're asking for a link to abuse her. but you already know that police in AZ have the right to stop and demand papers from anyone they think *might* be an illegal. that means someone who is a citizen but came from puerto rico would be stopped in AZ. that means that someone who came from mexico but is here legally would be stopped. it means that if i look hispanic (even though i'm not) an officer with a gun would have the right to demand papers. if such papers are demanded and i had nothing (which i wouldn't since i don't walk around with my passport) i could be arrested.

worse... it could be done to the children of people here lawfully who may be citizens.

basically, it allows them to stop you for DWL... (driving while latino).

no i'm not...where does the law say you have to carry proof of citizenship? i fail to see how requiring a link for a claim is abusing someone.

btw, the federal law also allows federal agents to stop people...seriously, explain to me why the federal law is constitutional and the state law which seeks merely to enforce existing federal law is not. i'm not abusing anyone, i'm seriously trying to wade through all the disinformation about this law.
 

Navy1960

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
5,821
Reaction score
1,322
Points
48
Location
Arizona
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.



2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.



3. Requires an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or local law to be transferred immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.



4. Allows a law enforcement agency to securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is in the agency’s custody to:

a) a federal facility in this state or

b) any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.



5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

SB1070 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet

I really do believe that people should take the time to read the actual bill, rather than the heated talk from both sides before comparing it to Nazi Germany. In fact here in Arizona when you go to get your DL much of this is in place from a proof standpoint. It serves no useful purpose to denegrate those people that wish to come to this nation to build a better life for themselves and also does not serve any purpose to advocate for those that violate current Federal law.

For too long now the Federal Govt. has looked the other way on this issue while both parties played to the voters and were afriad to address the issues of immigraation that few other nations would tolerate including Mexico. The real moral and ethical thing to do for a nation composed of immigrants is to make the process of becoming a citizen well managed anc clear cut and not reward those that go around that process at the expense of those that do not. So rather than talk of how Arizona is like NAzi Germany , which it clearly is not, perhaps the real ire should be directed at an apathetic Federal Govt. both demorat and republican that have thus far failed to address the real issues of immigration reform.

One number one, how are they going to establish reasonable cause?

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous,
Reasonable suspicion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion

I think that about sums it up, and gives them authority, during legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S., thats also in number one. Many tend to forget that entry into the United States in a manner not perscribed by law is a Federal crime.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,931
Reaction score
16,985
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
no i'm not...where does the law say you have to carry proof of citizenship? i fail to see how requiring a link for a claim is abusing someone.

btw, the federal law also allows federal agents to stop people...seriously, explain to me why the federal law is constitutional and the state law which seeks merely to enforce existing federal law is not. i'm not abusing anyone, i'm seriously trying to wade through all the disinformation about this law.

if, under the AZ law, an officer is permitted to ask you for proof of citizenship, then you have to carry proof of citizenship or risk being arrested. yes?

btw, she's totally fabricated the federal statute: THIS is what 8 USC 1342 says:

c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for
a violation of any provision of this section except officers and
employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either
individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers
whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

and this is what the section she purports to cite says:

(a) Criminal penalties
(1)(A) Any person who -
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to
bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person
at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other
than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether
such alien has received prior official authorization to come to,
enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any
future official action which may be taken with respect to such
alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien
has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in
violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport
or move such alien within the United States by means of
transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of
law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an
alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in
violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection,
or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such
alien in any place, including any building or any means of
transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or
reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of
the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be
in violation of law; or
(v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding
acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien
in respect to whom such a violation occurs -
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I)
or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or
(iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial
advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18,
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii),
(iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more
than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii),
(iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person
causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title
18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined
under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii),
(iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, fined under title 18, or both.
(C) It is not a violation of clauses (!1) (ii) or (iii) of
subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except
where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter
the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide
nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the
agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to
encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present
in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or
missionary for the denomination or organization in the United
States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee,
notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical
assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister
or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least
one year.

8 U.S.C. § 1324 : US Code - Section 1324: Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

Does that sound in the slightest like anything she represented it to be?
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,995
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

What is a legitimate contact and what is a reasonable suspicion?

Basically what this law says is that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

How is this different that the police assuming every male is a rapist and locking them up until they prove otherwise?
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,003
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.



2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.



3. Requires an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or local law to be transferred immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.



4. Allows a law enforcement agency to securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is in the agency’s custody to:

a) a federal facility in this state or

b) any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.



5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

SB1070 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet

I really do believe that people should take the time to read the actual bill, rather than the heated talk from both sides before comparing it to Nazi Germany. In fact here in Arizona when you go to get your DL much of this is in place from a proof standpoint. It serves no useful purpose to denegrate those people that wish to come to this nation to build a better life for themselves and also does not serve any purpose to advocate for those that violate current Federal law.

For too long now the Federal Govt. has looked the other way on this issue while both parties played to the voters and were afriad to address the issues of immigraation that few other nations would tolerate including Mexico. The real moral and ethical thing to do for a nation composed of immigrants is to make the process of becoming a citizen well managed anc clear cut and not reward those that go around that process at the expense of those that do not. So rather than talk of how Arizona is like NAzi Germany , which it clearly is not, perhaps the real ire should be directed at an apathetic Federal Govt. both demorat and republican that have thus far failed to address the real issues of immigration reform.

One number one, how are they going to establish reasonable cause?

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous,
Reasonable suspicion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion

I think that about sums it up, and gives them authority, during legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S., thats also in number one. Many tend to forget that entry into the United States in a manner not perscribed by law is a Federal crime.

what if they are not commiting a crime? How are they going to establish reasonable cause?
 

Navy1960

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
5,821
Reaction score
1,322
Points
48
Location
Arizona
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

What is a legitimate contact and what is a reasonable suspicion?

Basically what this law says is that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

How is this different that the police assuming every male is a rapist and locking them up until they prove otherwise?

Ravi, on reasonable suspicion see post #15, I already posted somthing on that one, as for legitimate contact ,

Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution.

The right of states to make laws governing safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived from the Tenth Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." State legislatures exercise their police power by enacting statutes, and they also delegate much of their police power to counties, cities, towns, villages, and large boroughs within the state.

Police Power legal definition of Police Power. Police Power synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


One can see that legitimate contact can be a traffic ticket, a court visit, or anything as defined as contact with a state,local, county, or city govt. official in an official manner. One other thing I mentioned earlier was that here in Arizona our citizenship requirements for a DL are quite restrictive, and have been for some time. This law that has passed is hardly the deamon that the press has made it out to be and is supported by almost 70% of the people here. In the end what really needs to be done is reforming immigration. What I fail to understand here, and am not saying this out of spite, is what would those who say that there should be no laws like this? Have no borders? if thats the case then try getting caught in Mexico without any documentation. The point is Ravi almost every nation in some way has a system by which you must enter that nation and its rigidly enforced. It would not be much for Americans to ask the same of their Govt.
 

Navy1960

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
5,821
Reaction score
1,322
Points
48
Location
Arizona
One number one, how are they going to establish reasonable cause?

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous,
Reasonable suspicion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion

I think that about sums it up, and gives them authority, during legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S., thats also in number one. Many tend to forget that entry into the United States in a manner not perscribed by law is a Federal crime.

what if they are not commiting a crime? How are they going to establish reasonable cause?

Luissa, your missing the legitimate contact part. What many seem to think is that Arizona has so many Law enforcement officials that they have the time to pull over every hispanic person. From a practical standpoint the notion is complete nonsense. The other assumption is that the law requires officers to pull over hispanics which it clearly does not. If a person has contact with law enforcement or a state, county, or city official, then they are more likely than not going to be checked. Let me go you one better, I've said it many times, here when you go to the DMV , they do not care if your white, black, hispanic, or from Mars if you cannot provide the correct documentation your NOT getting a DL. One other thing thats overlooked here constantly. is that when someone enters this nation illegally they have violated Federal law, and surely you would not advocate that local law enforcement not pick up a Murderer on Federal warrant? So why then would you advocate that any other person that violates Federal law not be picked up on reasonable suspicion in the same manner?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top