60% of the nation arees with Arizona law, only 31% oppose

[dainthomas]

Perhaps you are naive with regards to law enforcement. Are you aware of how easy it is for LEO to check if someone is a citizen?

Protip: it can be done any hour of the day, any day of the week (holidays too!) in about 5 mins, from their car. So in your strawman argument, your brother would probably get a warning and be sent home.

And in AZ, a DL *is* proof.

From any state? Many states don't check immigration status (or didn't until quite recently).

 

[Jaskalas]

The US government was able to divide and conquer.

Are we not divided now?

History is repeating itself, this time we are the natives.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally Posted by blackangst1
Perhaps you are naive with regards to law enforcement. Are you aware of how easy it is for LEO to check if someone is a citizen?

Protip: it can be done any hour of the day, any day of the week (holidays too!) in about 5 mins, from their car. So in your strawman argument, your brother would probably get a warning and be sent home.

And in AZ, a DL *is* proof.

From any state? Many states don't check immigration status (or didn't until quite recently).

The example said the brother is a citizen so no alien status would need to be checked.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not a strawman at all. In fact, I separated it from the original topic...perhapds you missed the first statement of my 2nd paragraph? Re-read it again.

If I can read through what youre saying...you believe an alien (we're not talking about citizens here, because this law has nothing to do with citizens) is in this country, legally or illegally, you feel its too much to ask for them to carry proof of their legal status? So you disagree with the federal law also? Or is it the punishment you have a problem with?

I still don't understand the connection between your two paragraphs. You seem to have related the two issues in your mind: opposing a particular law, and believing that people shouldn't have to follow the law.

In direct answer to your question, it's probably more the penalty that bothers me. When you are stopped in your car, and you have a valid license but it isn't in your possession, you get a "fix it ticket." With proof of correction, you'll pay like a $10 processing fee, get nothing on your record, and be done with it. Why do we make it a misdemeanor with a potential penalty of up to 6 months in jail to be caught walking around (not just driving, but doing anything at all) anywhere without immigration papers (the federal law is 30 days, which I still disagree with.) I could live with a nominal fine, but incarcerating people for not carrying proper ID is very police statish to me. I doubly don't like it on a state level, because then we are using law enforcement and judicial resources to prosecute people who are legally in the country because they forgot to carry their ID. To me, that is an offence of inconvenience to the authorites, i.e. you caused us a hassle by making it harder to verify your status and therefore you should pay us a fee for that. It isn't a crime of moral turpitude, and hence I don't think it's jailable and I certainly don't want local law enforcement to be wasting their time with it.

With respect to the main part of this particular law, I don't, in principle, have a problem with state and local authorities checking people's immigration status then forwarding information to the INS where appropriate. However, I do have a problem with the reasonable suspicion standard because that is way below probable cause; basically ethnicity plus any one other tiny quantum of suspicion not related to ethnicity is enough.

- wolf

 

[nick1985]

From any state? Many states don't check immigration status (or didn't until quite recently).

Dude just read the bill.

 

[blackangst1]

I still don't understand the connection between your two paragraphs. You seem to have related the two issues in your mind: opposing a particular law, and believing that people shouldn't have to follow the law.

In direct answer to your question, it's probably more the penalty that bothers me. When you are stopped in your car, and you have a valid license but it isn't in your possession, you get a "fix it ticket." With proof of correction, you'll pay like a $10 processing fee, get nothing on your record, and be done with it.

The same is true here, for all citizens.

Why do we make it a misdemeanor with a potential penalty of up to 6 months in jail to be caught walking around (not just driving, but doing anything at all) anywhere without immigration papers (the federal law is 30 days, which I still disagree with.)

I dunno...why is it you can get more jail time for robbery than murder? The laws are the laws. I guess we can agree to disagree. But it isnt unconstitutional.

I could live with a nominal fine, but incarcerating people for not carrying proper ID is very police statish to me.

If it applied to citizens I may be inclined to agree. But with aliens? Again, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I doubly don't like it on a state level, because then we are using law enforcement and judicial resources to prosecute people who are legally in the country because they forgot to carry their ID.

Under certain circumstances we prosecute citizens for similar things all day long. And so?

To me, that is an offence of inconvenience to the authorites, i.e. you caused us a hassle by making it harder to verify your status and therefore you should pay us a fee for that. It isn't a crime of moral turpitude, and hence I don't think it's jailable and I certainly don't want local law enforcement to be wasting their time with it.

You obviously dont live in AZ, or know any AZ LEO. They feel quite differently. Again, it is not hard to verify citizenship. Takes 5 mins. No citizen and no green card etc? Then youre processed until they figure out who you are. Kinda like what happens with citizens in some circumstances.

With respect to the main part of this particular law, I don't, in principle, have a problem with state and local authorities checking people's immigration status then forwarding information to the INS where appropriate. However, I do have a problem with the reasonable suspicion standard because that is way below probable cause; basically ethnicity plus any one other tiny quantum of suspicion not related to ethnicity is enough.

- wolf

Well, many of our laws, local and federal, are based on reasonable suspicion. Thats the way it is. If you lived here, and saw the carnage illegals leave here, you would err on the side of caution also.

edit: I can only find 2007 stats, and this is just in Maricopa county (Phoenix):

http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a.pdf

they (illegals) are responsible for approximately 22% of the crimes committed. Here is a breakdown of statistics by crime category. Illegal aliens account for:

·33.5% of those sentenced for manufacture, sale or transport of drugs.
·35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping.
·20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI.
·16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes.
·18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes.
·44% of those sentenced for forgery and fraud.
·85.3% of those convicted of criminal impersonation or false ID.
·96% of those convicted of human smuggling.

We have serious issues here. Not with Mexicans, but with illegals. Tuscon's stats are probably higher since theyre 100 miles closer to the border.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well, many of our laws, local and federal, are based on reasonable suspicion. Thats the way it is. If you lived here, and saw the carnage illegals leave here, you would err on the side of caution also.

I don't want to continue debating all these particular points, but the definition of "reasonable suspicion," and when it has and hasn't applied in the past, requires some clarification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is not a commonly used standard. It basically applies to Terry stops, students (i.e. public school locker searches), and border crossings. It IS a Constitutional issue; specifically, it's a 4th amendment issue.

- wolf

 

[blackangst1]

I don't want to continue debating all these particular points, but the definition of "reasonable suspicion," and when it has and hasn't applied in the past, requires some clarification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is not a commonly used standard. It basically applies to Terry stops, students (i.e. public school locker searches), and border crossings. It IS a Constitutional issue; specifically, it's a 4th amendment issue.

- wolf

Fair enough.

It IS a Constitutional issue; specifically, it's a 4th amendment issue.

Not since SCOTUS has already ruled on it for stop and identify states (which AZ is one of 24). So the issue *is* settled. Well, unless SCOTUS overturns their previous ruling, of course.

 

[IGBT]

I hear Utah, Wy.and Nevada are going to do the same thing.

 

[dainthomas]

Dude just read the bill.

I don't care enough to. I was just mildly curious.