AZ Immigration Bill Invites Racial Profiling of US Citizens

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

The problem I have with this bill is that it doesn't just allow the cops the check citizenship, it requires the officer to check if he suspects that a person is illegal. Cops are basically being told that they had better check everyone. This logically turns into a requirement for everyone to be able to prove citizenship at all times. Show me your papers, comrade.

+1

Worse yet, it allows any private citizen who thinks the police are not doing everything possible to enforce Federal immigration laws to sue the department. "Reasonable suspicion" is so vague as to be meaningless, so the logical effect of the law will be for the police to push the limits of "reasonable suspicion" as far as they can to avoid endless lawsuits. Alternatively they may do as the TSA does; to avoid the appearance of profiling they will just stop everybody. Those of you who think your blond hair and blue eyes will indemnify you against being hassled may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Once again I will ask what form of ID is sufficient to prove that you are a US citizen. I have asked this several times and each time it's nothing but crickets. If you, an authentic American citizen, are questioned what will you offer to prove your citizenship? Birth certificates are even more easily faked than social security cards, you can't rely on those. A drivers license is issued to legal residents, it isn't any good to prove citizenship. Anti-government paranoia types have killed the national ID card plan, and almost no states adopted the RealID drivers licenses as it was an unfunded mandate from Washington. Although this Arizona law does not explicitly require that US citizens obtain and carry at all times a passport, that is the logical implication as, for most citizens, a passport is the only available proof of citizenship. Under the law, if you can't prove citizenship or legal immigration status you must be detained until your citizenship can be verified by the Federal government. Nice little vacation in Sheriff Arpaio's resort, until you get the thumb's up from a Federal bureaucrat.

Show me your papers, comrade.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The problem I have with this bill is that it doesn't just allow the cops the check citizenship, it requires the officer to check if he suspects that a person is illegal. Cops are basically being told that they had better check everyone. This logically turns into a requirement for everyone to be able to prove citizenship at all times. Show me your papers, comrade.

+1

Worse yet, it allows any private citizen who thinks the police are not doing everything possible to enforce Federal immigration laws to sue the department. "Reasonable suspicion" is so vague as to be meaningless, so the logical effect of the law will be for the police to push the limits of "reasonable suspicion" as far as they can to avoid endless lawsuits. Alternatively they may do as the TSA does; to avoid the appearance of profiling they will just stop everybody. Those of you who think your blond hair and blue eyes will indemnify you against being hassled may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Once again I will ask what form of ID is sufficient to prove that you are a US citizen. I have asked this several times and each time it's nothing but crickets. If you, an authentic American citizen, are questioned what will you offer to prove your citizenship? Birth certificates are even more easily faked than social security cards, you can't rely on those. A drivers license is issued to legal residents, it isn't any good to prove citizenship. Anti-government paranoia types have killed the national ID card plan, and almost no states adopted the RealID drivers licenses as it was an unfunded mandate from Washington. Although this Arizona law does not explicitly require that US citizens obtain and carry at all times a passport, that is the logical implication as, for most citizens, a passport is the only available proof of citizenship. Under the law, if you can't prove citizenship or legal immigration status you must be detained until your citizenship can be verified by the Federal government. Nice little vacation in Sheriff Arpaio's resort, until you get the thumb's up from a Federal bureaucrat.

Show me your papers, comrade.

Don

You guys need to get your opinions from somewhere else

The law does not state what you say here and for the most part it is what the federal law already says

Funny shit though

keep it up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe the law simply allows police to ask for proof of citizenship once they already have a person of interest. For example if you pull a drunk driver over you use to not be able to ask EVEN when obvious that the person is not from here (like does not speak English) for proof of citizenship, now you can.

How is speaking English a sign of citizenship? There is no requirement for citizens to learn English.

Yes there is.

You have to take a test in English. and you have to write English in front of an immigration officer. The only way you are exempt from the test is if you have an illness, or if you are over 65.

Citizenship is irrelevant. It is legal status. You can be a perfectly legal resident alien, and a perfectly legal non-resident alien.

There's no language requirement on legal alien status.

well my interview was all in English in an American embassy, but you are correct they did not give my mom and dad who I was translating for a hard time at all, and there is no test, but a huge application.

But as a legal alien you do get a green card( actually pink back in my time) that’s the size of a drivers license. I don't see why you cant have that on you.

Again the point is that police will be able to enforce immigration law, while before they have been prohibited from enforcing such laws.

Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons.

I personally think this was a law that should have always been enforced, and was not for PC reasons. There is no question in my mind that if you are here illegally you are breaking the law and the law needs to be enforced.

My solution has always been to have punishment for business that higher illegal, if you cant get a job being illegal or you cant get social services then you wont come.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[davjohns 1]

Maybe this will help. I found the actual text and a good synopsis. I find nothing objectionable in the law; only in the lies people have attributed to it. Here is the important part of the synopsis.


Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.
Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:
Ø A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation imposed, ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be immediately notified.
Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility.
Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona.
Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes:
Ø Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license.

Ø Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order.

Ø If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws.

Ø Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies.

Stipulates that these provisions does not implement, authorize or establish and cannot be construed to implement authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).
Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
Requires the court to order any that a violating entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions.
States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the state Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.
Authorizes the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency that prevails in a case brought under these provisions.
Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Darius11 12]

You think if i write this



"Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons."


"Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons."


"Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons."


"Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons."

a 1000 more times they will see it ?LOL

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You think if i write this



"Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons."


"Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons."


"Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons."


"Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons."

a 1000 more times they will see it ?LOL

NOt unless they want to

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rhaig 0]

Quote

"Reasonable suspicion" is so vague as to be meaningless, so the logical effect of the law will be for the police to push the limits of "reasonable suspicion" as far as they can to avoid endless lawsuits.

are your local law enforcement pushing the limits of reasonable suspicion today?

***
Once again I will ask what form of ID is sufficient to prove that you are a US citizen. I have asked this several times and each time it's nothing but crickets. If you, an authentic American citizen, are questioned what will you offer to prove your citizenship? Birth certificates are even more easily faked than social security cards, you can't rely on those. A drivers license is issued to legal residents, it isn't any good to prove citizenship. Anti-government paranoia types have killed the national ID card plan, and almost no states adopted the RealID drivers licenses as it was an unfunded mandate from Washington. Although this Arizona law does not explicitly require that US citizens obtain and carry at all times a passport, that is the logical implication as, for most citizens, a passport is the only available proof of citizenship. Under the law, if you can't prove citizenship or legal immigration status you must be detained until your citizenship can be verified by the Federal government. Nice little vacation in Sheriff Arpaio's resort, until you get the thumb's up from a Federal bureaucrat.

Show me your papers, comrade.

Don

The last time I renewed my drivers license, the TX DPS office required I show them my social security card. I don't know what the state of AZ considers legal proof of citizenship. (edit: see davjohns post containing text from and summary of the law)

--
Rob

[davjohns 1]

The law makes perfect sense.

If they have reason to believe you are committing a crime, they get to ask.

If they have reason to think you stole the car, they get to ask for proof of registration.

If they have reason to think you just stabbed someone, they ask if you have a knife.

If they have reason to think you are an illegal alien, they get to ask for paperwork. It makes clear that being brown does not create reasonable suspicion.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

If anyone bothers to read the law - Arizona is happy with nothing so complicated as an Arizona ID card to prove citizenship. And that's only after the officer has some reason to think you are an illegal. This law is really not an issue. It is being distorted in order to attack people who want to see that immigration is properly regulated.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

[The law] Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:
Ø A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

As I suggested up-thread, this alone effectively authorizes any Arizona LEO to "detain" anyone with, for example, a foreign accent and a valid out-of-state DL, pending verification of the detainee's status. I see that as a recipe for civil rights lawsuits against AZ police departments that are just waiting to happen.

Quote

that's only after the officer has some reason to think you are an illegal.

Yeah, you have a CA DL and a Spanish accent. You think that's enough? With all due respect, I sure don't.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

are your local law enforcement pushing the limits of reasonable suspicion today?

They aren't threatened with endless litigation if they don't push the limits. It's the combination of the two, plus the part of the law protecting the police against legal action from people who feel they have been unfairly harassed, that is toxic. If you tell the police, "we'll sue you if you don't push it, but we've got your back if you do", what do you think will happen?

Quote

The last time I renewed my drivers license, the TX DPS office required I show them my social security card.

And how hard is it to get a fake social security card, or a birth certificate? Then you can use your fake birth certificate to get an authentic driver's license, and you're good to go!

Look, I'm not arguing that illegal immigration isn't a big problem. I even have an additional (rather peevish) gripe, as I spent thousands of dollars in fees and years waiting on INS/USCIS to take action on various applications (green card, naturalization) so that I and my wife and children could immigrate here legally. It bugs me that people "jump the line", and avoid the waiting, fees, intrusive interrogations, and all that I had to go through. But let's be realistic here. If the goal of the Arizona (and similar) legislation is to eliminate illegal immigration, it's no more likely to succeed than laws outlawing pot have eliminated the drug trade. It's all about supply and demand; as Darius said if there were no jobs for illegals, and no government benefits, there would be no illegals. Face it, the supply of people wanting to come here is endless, as long as the demand (businesses willing to hire cheap illegal labor) exists. Putting a few more barriers in the way, such as getting a real driver's license by using a fake birth certificate, will hardly even slow down the flood of people coming in. Besides, there are real costs, in terms of money and eroded civil rights, to catch, warehouse, and eventually deport all those people. Wouldn't it be better if they stopped coming here illegally of their own accord?

I appreciate davjohn's summary of the Arizona law-thanks! There is a lot in the law that I have no problems with. As I said, some combinations of things that seem innocuous in themselves will likely lead to problems. I did read the law, all 17 pages, but it's pretty boring and I may have nodded off and missed a point or two. But, here's the thing: section 6 deals with businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and the penalty for them is (get this) three years PROBATION (not sure how probation will apply to a business), and they lose their business licenses until they (get this) sign an affidavit promising not to do it again! No fine, no jail time for company officers, no loss of the right to bid on state contracts, in short NO financial penalties. How is that supposed to be a deterrent to business from hiring illegals? On the other hand anybody, even a US citizen, can be fined for standing alongside a road and indicating, by word or gesture, that they are available to be hired. WTF?

One last thing, I was able to immigrate legally because of my education and technical skills. For the kind of jobs done by most illegal immigrants, there is no legal avenue of immigration available. We seem to need at least some of these people to feed our appetite for cheap food and cheap labor. If we want the cheap food and labor, we need to make a reasonably priced visa that allow these people to come here legally.

Supply and demand, people. Kicking ass may make you feel better in the short term, but supply and demand is the solution to the problem.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[masterrig 1]

I have noticed... you tend to use the word 'spic' a lot.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

well my interview was all in English in an American embassy, but you are correct they did not give my mom and dad who I was translating for a hard time at all, and there is no test, but a huge application.

But as a legal alien you do get a green card( actually pink back in my time) that’s the size of a drivers license. I don't see why you cant have that on you.

Again the point is that police will be able to enforce immigration law, while before they have been prohibited from enforcing such laws.

Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons.

I personally think this was a law that should have always been enforced, and was not for PC reasons. There is no question in my mind that if you are here illegally you are breaking the law and the law needs to be enforced.

My solution has always been to have punishment for business that higher illegal, if you cant get a job being illegal or you cant get social services then you wont come.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

well my interview was all in English in an American embassy, but you are correct they did not give my mom and dad who I was translating for a hard time at all, and there is no test, but a huge application.

But as a legal alien you do get a green card( actually pink back in my time) that’s the size of a drivers license. I don't see why you cant have that on you.

Again the point is that police will be able to enforce immigration law, while before they have been prohibited from enforcing such laws.

Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons.

I personally think this was a law that should have always been enforced, and was not for PC reasons. There is no question in my mind that if you are here illegally you are breaking the law and the law needs to be enforced.

My solution has always been to have punishment for business that higher illegal, if you cant get a job being illegal or you cant get social services then you wont come.

I like what you have said! You've made some very good points. I really agree with the point you made about penalizing those who hire illegals. Hit 'em in the wallet till they squeal.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

well my interview was all in English in an American embassy, but you are correct they did not give my mom and dad who I was translating for a hard time at all, and there is no test, but a huge application.

But as a legal alien you do get a green card( actually pink back in my time) that’s the size of a drivers license. I don't see why you cant have that on you.

Again the point is that police will be able to enforce immigration law, while before they have been prohibited from enforcing such laws.

Again the police can not walk around asking people for proof of citizenship unless they are already looking at the person for other reasons.

I personally think this was a law that should have always been enforced, and was not for PC reasons. There is no question in my mind that if you are here illegally you are breaking the law and the law needs to be enforced.

My solution has always been to have punishment for business that higher illegal, if you cant get a job being illegal or you cant get social services then you wont come.

I like what you have said! You've made some very good points. I really agree with the point you made about penalizing those who hire illegals. Hit 'em in the wallet till they squeal.


Chuck

Agreed. That is the Feds job and they have failed miserably at it, leaving the states little choice but to deal with the problem the best way they see fit.

[skyrider 0]

It has been law all my life that anyone over the age of 16 carry, "at all times" a "Legal" ID....What is wrong with using a law that has been on the books for over 60 years?

We are finally using exsisting laws, the way they were intended!

[masterrig 1]

Quote

It has been law all my life that anyone over the age of 16 carry, "at all times" a "Legal" ID....What is wrong with using a law that has been on the books for over 60 years?

We are finally using exsisting laws, the way they were intended!

A-men!!!


Chuck

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you're okay with giving up some of your basic civil rights for a little sense of security? If so, which ones should we give up? Would you be okay with a cop pulling you over and asking for proof of citizenship and then being detained until proof was provided.

You realize this already happens, right? Up until now they just peak in your car for some reason. I'm guessing they are checking to see if anyone looks dark skinned and scared. Now they have the right to ask for an ID. Big change...

I suppose it's not such a big change if you happen to be light skinned.

Did that make sense in your head before you wrote it. This is the way things already are. The difference is that the illegals can be arrested. Rather than strictly racial profiling, they can ask for an ID. As much as it probably burns you up, this is actually more fair that what is currently happening.

I'm sure in your dreams it might be more fair. You conveniently gloss over the fact that now the police can be sued if John Q Public doesn't think they're being aggressive enough in rounding up the illegals. How do you think that might affect the frequency of racial profiling?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

That's because our wonderful politicians in Washington have said for too long that 'We don't have a problem on our Southwest border!'


Chuck

Businesses (and their campaign contributions) love a plentiful supply of cheap labor. That's why the feds have turned the other cheek.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

That's because our wonderful politicians in Washington have said for too long that 'We don't have a problem on our Southwest border!'


Chuck

Businesses (and their campaign contributions) love a plentiful supply of cheap labor. That's why the feds have turned the other cheek.

Yup! Just our voted-in politicians looking-out for the best welfare of themselves.


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I have noticed... you tend to use the word 'spic' a lot.

I use it ironically, the same way I sometimes use "Negro" in other threads: to make a point. Other might say I'm presuming to "read the minds" of others. So be it.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

It has been law all my life that anyone over the age of 16 carry, "at all times" a "Legal" ID.

No, it hasn't. And it isn't.
Unless you're referring to driver's licenses, which is not the same thing as being required to carry legal ID on oneself, you're simply inventing a "fact" where no such fact exists.

[Andy9o8 2]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2

Quote

Arizona police officer sues over immigration law

CNN) -- A police officer in Tucson, Arizona, asks that local law enforcement be exempt from enforcing the state's new immigration law in a lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday.

Officer Martin H. Escobar claims in the suit that the law will "seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes."

He also says there are no "race-neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States," including a person's proximity to the Mexican border, linguistic characteristics and capabilities, skin color, clothing worn or the type of vehicle driven.

The law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, allows police to ask anyone for proof of legal U.S. residency. Brewer and others who support the law have said it does not involve racial profiling or any other illegal acts.

"Racial profiling is illegal," Brewer said after signing the bill. "It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona."

[masterrig 1]

Just curious. Personally, I don't care for derrogatory terms like that in any sense and never use them.


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Just curious. Personally, I don't care for derrogatory terms like that in any sense and never use them.

Nor do I, with one exception: when parroting the bad behavior of others in the context of condemning it. I generally trust my audience to recognize the context and my intent.