Arizona Immigration Bill - What is objectionable

Discussion in 'Politics' started by targus, Apr 27, 2010.

  1. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    funny...I seem to be hearing

    *crickets*
     
  3. dcorbett

    dcorbett
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,411
    Likes Received:
    1
    same here...and an occasional chuckle...

    :tongue3:
     
  4. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why all the fuss?
     
  5. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    The lack of participation here by those who have been throwing around words like "Gestapo" and "racism" is very disappointing.

    I guess that it is easier to react on an emotional uninformed level than it is to discuss the facts of the matter.

    To borrow a signature line from someone on the board...

    “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.” Ben Franklin
     
  6. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok here I have a problem with this provision my notes in red
    And that's just for starters. How about this one
    Actually I'm going to have to pull back that last one. I re-read it and the person is already under arrest. I still have problems with the first provision listed however.
    How about this one
    In otherwords a LEO just has to believe a person is illegal.
     
    #6 Thinkingstuff, Apr 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2010
  7. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    I'm going to try and respond to your comments, but i makes it hard when you comment inline to quotes. I'm just going to extract your text that was in red and respond to it.

    This has to do with the part of the bill that says, "reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person". All this is saying is that an officer must attempt to determine the immigration status of a person. They must actually try to do so. I don't understand your objection to this. Could you elaborate?

    Simply untrue. "involved in a lawful contact" means something. It means that the officer must already be engaged with the person because of some other issue, such as a traffic stop. "Lawful contact" does not mean they can just stop people on the street for no other reason. You should be happy about this "lawful contact" portion of the bill, it means that "just walking down the street" things are not going to happen.

    Again, "reasonable suspicion" means something. It means that the officer must be able to prove that he had a reason for doing something and that reason must be considered reasonable by the average person. Police officers are not going to go rogue because of this bill, they still want to maintain their jobs and they will follow the law. "Reasonable suspicion" is a term that is used in law all the time and it has precedent and means something.

    Then there was this part of the bill:

    and you said:

    I don't really follow what you are saying. The part of the bill you are commenting on only applies to people that have already been arrested. That means they did something, or are highly suspected of doing something, wrong. What that part of the bill is saying is that before they are relased, their immigration status must be verified. Again, what's you objection to that?

    Then you commented on:

    and said:

    Peace officers can already arrest people without a warrant when they find them in the middle of a crime! You don't think an officer has to go get a warrant to arrest someone they find in the middle of a drug deal, do you?

    I also see you failed to point out:

    So, this bill specifically says that the civil rights of all persons must be respected...imagine that!
     
  8. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    We'll see how its implemented. I see you forgot to show I pulled back from one argument because I re-read the passage. However, the last didn't specify criminal activity just supicion of illegality. Civil rights is loosely defined by this statute. And I'm not certain I'm still comfortable with "lawful contact" I will have to determine what is included in this passage before I change my mind. Reading the passage any contact not criminal conduct by the LEO can be considered "lawful contact". Or it can be specified to only certain instances. I will have to judge what that means when I see how the laywers look at it.
     
  9. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "reason man" concept is well established law.

    This refers to the police officer.

    The police officer's contact with the individual must be lawful.

    The "probable cause" concept is well established law.

    IMO your problem is not with this law so much as it is a lack of knowledge about the American legal system in general.

    Anyone who has watched Law and Order would have at least a minimum acquaintance with the "reasonable man" standard and "probable cause".

    Go back to school.:smilewinkgrin:
     
  10. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    I admit I'm not a lawyer. However, I also know these terms vary from state to state. The state I am in is more restrictive than Arizona and "legal contact" must be with in the duties of the officer however its my understanding that this is a lot more loosly defined in Arizona than here. So an officer pulling a person over in my state for speeding would be considered Lawful Contact. Yet in Arizona it might be defined simply by noticing a person (like a hispanic) in a predominately white neighborhood. Big difference. Probable cause is also different depending on what state you are in. If I understand it right the tv show Law and Order is primarily set in NY City which is more restrictive than many western states. So you may be mislead by attaching NY requirements to Arizona. Arizona allows you for instance to open carry a firearm. It could be determined by a police officer to question a person of hispanic decent as to why they are open carrying a firearm as opposed to a white person. That also might fall with in Legal Contact.
     
  11. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    The majority of these law enforcement officers are local guys, or if they're feds, they live local, so being locals, they know where the illegals congregate (chances are that one time or another, they may have hired some of these illegals themselves to do some job for them: haul, clean, etc., as day laborers).
    So there'll be no problem with intended illegal arrest arising out racial profiling.
    The only time situations can be touchy is if the illegal or subject of the arrest is also a transient to the Arizona town, and therefore unfamiliar to the law enforcement officer.
    As for abusing this law and the power it gives to the enforcers ?
    Well, any power enforcers have can be abused with or without this law, so I don't understand why the big fuss over it.
    Trust me, I know how it is to live under a rule where law enforcers break the law regularly, and the US ain't it.
     
  12. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    I need to keep quit and listen to you! Your view is just about how I see it and you have worded it well, my friend.
     
  13. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a lot "mights", "maybe's" and "could be's".

    I'm still hoping that you will start to concern yourself less with emotion and more with fact in forming an opinion on the subject.
     
  14. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    We'll see how it plays out. Give it a little time. I bet we don't have to wait long to see my fears are substantiated.
     
  15. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the OP link: 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.

    From the US Constitution...
    Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The Police have no authority to search a person just lawfully walking down the street.
    They first have to be suspected of breaking a law.

    Looking like a Mexican is not enough to search a person.. .yet, this law mentions "Lawful contact"...

    Yes, illegals are a problem, but don't throw out our rights, and set a dangerous precedent that may lead to a police state.
     
  16. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Yes, you are correct that the police can't search someone just walking down the street. That's exactly what the law states. You just don't know what "lawful contact" means. It means that the officer must already be engaged with the person for some other reason. The law simply states that if an officer is engaged with a person, because of something other than immigration concerns, then they must make an effort to discern their immigration status, only if the officer has reasonable suspicion that they might be illegal.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,357
    Likes Received:
    789
    So who said anything about looking like Mexican
     
  18. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "lawful contact" is referring to the police officer - not the individual asked for ID.

    The police must be lawful in their contact with the public.

    So no, they can not just stop someone walking down the street - unless the police officer "reasonably suspects" a problem.

    The Arizona bill is no different than the Federal standard.
     
  19. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0

    Ok, gotcha.... My brain had a burp! It's been a long couple of days.
     
  20. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,466
    Likes Received:
    138
    Let's WAIT and SEE!!!

    I'm going to have to wait and see just how the law enforcement folks implement this law. Personally, I know a lot of law enforcement folks - and part of my past employement with the State of California and the State of Nebraska was spent working hand-in-hand with the DOJ, local law enforcment, courts, district attorney's, probation, parole, and juvenile courts people.

    I also served as a chaplain and worship leader for several Cops-for-Christ chapters.

    I can honestly say that in 20 years of association with these folks, I NEVER once observed prejudice, or, wrong doing.

    Of course, until I see their true intention, I'll continue to purchase things from Arizona.

    Shalom,

    Pastor Paul :type:
     

Share This Page

Loading...