If ariz law is “unconstitutional”

[Ravi]

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.

Arizona isn't another country. As an American, I would expect to prove myself in another country. But not in THIS country, as an American.

 

[Luissa]

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?

So you really think that police officers are not going to pull over people for being hispanic?
And I am not saying they should pick up someone who has commited a crime. My problem is a certain group of people having to carry around their proof of citizenship, just because they have ancestors from latin america.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

Arizona isn't another country. As an American, I would expect to prove myself in another country. But not in THIS country, as an American.

You do all the time though Ravi, as an American you most likely do it more than those that have to go through the long and very dumb process of immigration IMHO. When you apply for a mortgage, you have to supply a SSN , etc. etc. a car loan, a drivers license, when you go to the airport to travel,, etc. etc. and yes even when an officer pulls you over in some states you are required to produce id.

 

[jillian]

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.

Arizona isn't another country. As an American, I would expect to prove myself in another country. But not in THIS country, as an American.

You do all the time though Ravi, as an American you most likely do it more than those that have to go through the long and very dumb process of immigration IMHO. When you apply for a mortgage, you have to supply a SSN , etc. etc. a car loan, a drivers license, when you go to the airport to travel,, etc. etc. and yes even when an officer pulls you over in some states you are required to produce id.

but you don't have to worry about being arrested if you don't produce proof of citizenship. i'd expect to have to provide my driver's license if i am driving. i would not expect to have to provide my drivers' license if i'm a passenger in someone else's car.

and i'd never expect to have to show my passport in my own country.

 

[Angelhair]

'It forces Americans to carry proof of citizenship.'

People, people, people - what the heck do you think your driver's license is???? It's an ID that says you BELONG in this country. Of course since we became sooooooooo pc and failied to abide my our own laws, ANYBODY now can have a driver's license - just ask anybody who sells them! Years back they fired a whole slew of people at the DMV here in CA for selling them to people - illegal and otherwise. Some of you are so darn naive!

 

[Navy1960]

jillian, Luissa, I've read this bill many times and still cannot find the place in the bill that requires a person to carry proof of citizenship on them at all times? Perhaps you would care to point that section out. Yes, it's true that the vast majority of those subject to this law would be of hispanic decent but could that have more to do with the fact that Arizona is closer to Mexico than it to Canada and to my knowledge we are not having that much of an illegal immigration problem with Canada at the moment. Look, of course an officer or official that uses race as a method or excuse for reasonable suspicion is wrong and that officer and officials should not be in that position if that is the case. The facts are that many good and decent families want to work here and come to this nation to make a better life, and that is the fabric of who we are and should be encouraged in a legal and problem free process. I honestly do not see this law as the monster that many see it as. If it were I would say so.

 

[Yurt]

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?

of course it doesn't sound the slightest like anything she represented, hence my repeated requests for the link to that statute and my responses to NYcarb that their links only give an opinion, not the actual law as i could not find what she represented as law under the jump cite....i guess you missed those posts of mine.

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?

not necessarily. unless you can point me to the language in the law that says you can be arrested for not carrying proof of citizenship, you're reaching here. see Gonzales v. City of Peoria, a ninth circuit case that allows state officials to ask for documentation, but if they don't have it, that alone is not probable cause.

this is why i am asking for the specific language. so far all i see is language that mirrors federal law and allows the state to enforce federal law. there are plethora of cases that allow a state to do just that, gonzales is one of them....see also United States v. Di Re; Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301

i'm not trying to abuse anyone jillian

 

[Angelhair]

Bottom line - KUDOS to Governor Brewer for having the guts!!! Now let's see if Obama and his cronies take the easy way out and give 20m plus illegals amnesty which would be the BIGGEST mistake this bozo ever makes!! Not to say all the other mistakes he has under his belt. If he does, it will be interesting to see how people in other states will be crying and kicking when the crime in their cities go up and the kidnappings begin to happen. Don't come crying to PHX for advice.