California vs. Arizona (Page 3)

Do you also disagree with the federal statute that is more restrictive that the state one? You do know that under federal law there is no need to prove reasonable suspicion before a federal agent needs to ask for papers?

It is racism when an hispanic cop, which many AZ cops are, asks an hispanic suspect where they are from?

Edited by Jackemy 2010-05-21 7:20 AM

My point is that we continue to do business with countries that have committed genocide and other atrocities, but here we are encouraged to stop with one of our own states?  Because we disagree with a law?  It seems a little over the top to try to economically devastate one of our states.

If you disagree with the law, perhaps a letter to their governor would be more appropriate?

8 USC 1226 (Apprehension and Detention of Aliens) states "On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States."

While I do not agree the law was born out of racism, I do believe that it is discriminatory; if not in letter, then in action.



The problem I have with the law is that it potentially violates the rights of citizens, natural-born and naturalized. 

While immigrants are required to carry documentation of lawful registration (8 USC 1304e), citizens are not.  If a first-generation natural-born citizen of Mexican parents is approached and asked for documentation, what would they provide?  Are we to require that natural-born citizens carry birth certificates at all times?

From the law:

37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Honestly how often do you NOT have ID on you.  Be honest without yourself.  There are probably NOT a lot of times you are out and about in public when you do not have ID on your person or easily obtainable.

So you'll say "When I'm jogging in the park."  OK, fine.  Why would the police stop you when you are jogging in the park?  They can't do it (according to the law) simply becuase you are Hispanic.  So why would they stop you?

People are trying to take the VERY rare exception and make it the rule.



Edited by TriRSquared 2010-05-21 8:34 AM

 actually it is a law (or it was in Texas & Ohiot) that you have to carry ID on you..  while it's not often enforced if asked by a law enforcement officer you must provide it.   even if you are out jogging in the park, will they site you for it, probably not, if you are being a real jerk, then maybe.  

I think there whole carryng the Birth Certificate myth issue has been covered already.

I'm just wondering how offensive it is to be asked for I.D.?  I can't say that it would really hurt my feelings.........

Now if the officer called me a short fat gringo, that might.  (As a note of interest, I had a Mexican officer call me that once on vacation in ixtapa.)  It did hurt a little...........

Do you have a direct link to the list of identification?  I can not find that listing in my copy of the text of SB1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf).

I agree that it is common for me, as an individual, to carry a drivers license but, even if I do not carry it, I am not in danger of being arrested for not having it.  As Gary stated, in certain states, not carrying ID is an offense that may garner a citation or notice to produce ID to the court within a period of time.  In Arizona, not carrying ID is an offense that may garner an arrest.

My problem is that "innocent until proven guilty" has been undercut, in any situation, to become "guilty, on account of reasonable suspicion by an individual, until proven innocent."

The very foundation of the 14th amendment is that there are NO exceptions.

That's the senate bill.  This is the bill that was voted into law after the house ammended the bill.

http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF



That's a reasonable suspicion argument.  That's a larger issue.  Has nothing to do with the AZ law.

Edited by TriRSquared 2010-05-21 10:17 AM

Stop for a second.  What you just pointed out has nothing to do with the Arizona bill.  That exists today as per Terry vs. Ohio.  My problem with this entire debate is that if people use this angle, I have to ask why these same people didn't have a problem with it before now?

FWIW, I want to see the "reasonable suspicion" thing overturned.  Pre-Arizona Illegal Immigration law, it gives police the ability to disreguard our 4th amendment rights IMO.

Doh.. I replied before you hit that one.  I am in agreement.

This user's post has been ignored.

This user's post has been ignored.

This user's post has been ignored.

Subconscious bias exists for a reason.  It is typically learned as a result of experienced behavior.  Can they be wrong?  yes.  Can they be right? yes.  I think a person is better off identifying prejudice and reasoning out it's justification (or lack thereof) than taking a blanket approach to it.  Sometimes those biases (or prejudgments) serve people VERY WELL.

One question that haunts me whenever I think about this issue, that I can never seem to reconcile, is:

"If your looking for a fox in a hen house, why are you I.D.-ing the chickens?"

I disagree that the basis of reasonable suspicion is not germane to the Arizona law, as we are discussing it.  Terry v Ohio discusses the 4th amendment constitutionality of initial interaction between citizens and a representative of a law enforcement agency.  The law in Arizona is clearly predicated on "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest" to establish that interaction.

Subsequent to that initial interaction, the Arizona law allows for the interaction to extend into the realm of immigration enforcement solely on the basis of reasonable suspicion, unilaterally applied, by the law enforcement agent.  At such time, the agent shall make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the immigration status of the individual.  Further, the law states "a person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following..." 

Analyzing that statement in its inverse, a person IS PRESUMED to be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States UNTIL the person provides the law enforcement officer or agency with any of the listed identification.  That is the basis of my previous "guilty until proven innocent" statement.

In addition, the law, under section 13-1509, creates the state offense of "WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT" which it further designates as a Class 1 misdemeanor.  The designation of the offense as a misdemeanor enables the investigating agent to arrest the individual, pursuant to section 13-3883(A)(2), solely on the grounds of the presumed violation of 13-1509.

When viewed in aggregate, under the Arizona law, a citizen of the United States, without proper identification, may be arrested and charged solely based on the reasonable suspicion of the arresting officer, where that reasonable suspicion was not the basis for an initial interaction under Terry v Ohio.

Overall, my issue is not with the state's involvement in the area of immigration enforcement.  My issue is with the arbitrary, and potentially discriminatory, manner in which that enforcement will be carried out when left to the unimpeded judgement of a single law enforcement agent.


Edited by CubeFarmGopher 2010-05-21 1:37 PM

Was it the short or fat that hurt a little....? I want to know so I can file the proper discrimination paperwork: Height or weight challenged?

President Obama asked the federal court to do a full constitutional review of the law. Either they found it was legal or are still reviewing it and have not made an announcement yet. I wonder if they would, under pressure from the president, try to declare it unconstitutional if there review finds that it is a legal law?