Arizona signs immigration bill into law

[flavio]

And here you make a claim you cannot back up

Damn man, did you read the part where I specifically said that we were both making claims we couldn't back up? WTF?

I made a claim that was unsubstantiated because spidey did to make a point. I explained it in the post quite thoroughly.

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/article_b79cd5c4-5ac3-5dd3-9763-361ac7675c9f.html

Interesting..

She said the legal definition of a "stop" could be anything including questioning someone about a crime in which that person is not a suspect.

Sinema worried, though, another change actually could result in more people being questioned about whether they are in the country legally. It says the requirement to inquire about legal status exists when they are enforcing any state or local law -- or even local ordinances.

That, said Sinema, would include overgrown yards, parking on streets and inoperable vehicles in driveways. Worse yet, she said, is that the mandate to seek information on immigration status might be extended to zoning and code-enforcement officers.

Looks like there still might be a way to go on this one.

So the fact is, it was changed due to two lawsuits filed.

Thank you for proving spidey07 wrong.

 

[blackangst1]

You got this backwards. The law read...

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN

So the stop would be more likely before the suspicion not after as you're claiming. If you're trying to claim that the only reason you would be stopped is if they suspect you're an alien then that really opens it up.

What would cause them to suspect you are an alien and stop you?

No Im not claiming that at all.

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:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

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

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

So citizens will have to have their papers to be presumed not an alien.

I dont read it that way. Neither one of us is a judge or an AZ atty, so the point is stalemated. The only law I read where carrying ID is a requirement is for aliens (like my wife). An alien not carrying it is a crime. A citizen who doesnt, is not.

 

[blackangst1]

Damn man, did you read the part where I specifically said that we were both making claims we couldn't back up? WTF?

I made a claim that was unsubstantiated because spidey did to make a point. I explained it in the post quite thoroughly.



Interesting..

She said the legal definition of a "stop" could be anything including questioning someone about a crime in which that person is not a suspect.

Sinema worried, though, another change actually could result in more people being questioned about whether they are in the country legally. It says the requirement to inquire about legal status exists when they are enforcing any state or local law -- or even local ordinances.

That, said Sinema, would include overgrown yards, parking on streets and inoperable vehicles in driveways. Worse yet, she said, is that the mandate to seek information on immigration status might be extended to zoning and code-enforcement officers.

Looks like there still might be a way to go on this one.



Thank you for proving spidey07 wrong.

Yes you did. And you also said

But really unsubstantiated claims have no place in reasoned debate.

so maybe next time keep your mouth shut?

And Im not sure what I proved spidey wrong on.

Whats your problem with this law anyway? It cant be taking away of freedom, because none have been taken away (unless, as you claim, freedom of not carrying ID for citizens?). Playing devil's advocate to myself for a minute...if your point were lawfully correct, then this bill has nothing to do with it. Even in stop and identify cases (namely Dempsey v. People) the interpratation is vague. Either way, Im not aware of AZ requiring citizens being explicity required to carry ID. I would also like for you to point out where this AZ law oversteps federal law, or how it goes further than federal law. In which case, it could be overturned; however, so far no one has provided any evidence of that.

 

[flavio]

I dont read it that way. Neither one of us is a judge or an AZ atty, so the point is stalemated. The only law I read where carrying ID is a requirement is for aliens (like my wife). An alien not carrying it is a crime. A citizen who doesnt, is not.

It may not be a crime for a citizen but if you don't have it you can be detained until you show it.

 

[flavio]

And you also said
"But really unsubstantiated claims have no place in reasoned debate".

Yes, spidey made and unsubstantiated claim so I made one too to show how easy it was and then said neither one of them had a place in a reasoned debate.

And Im not sure what I proved spidey wrong on.

Spidey claimed they changed the law as a negotiating tactic and you showed it was due to the lawsuits.

Whats your problem with this law anyway? It cant be taking away of freedom, because none have been taken away

All the people of AZ face possible detainment if they do not have their papers on them.

Either way, Im not aware of AZ requiring citizens being explicity required to carry ID.

They can go without ID but they open themselves up to being detained until someone brings in their papers.

That truck driver had his wife bring in his birth certificate but imagine what a pain it would be if you lived alone and didn't have anyone that could get to your stuff?

I would also like for you to point out where this AZ law oversteps federal law, or how it goes further than federal law.

Could you show me how it's the same as federal law?

 

[blackangst1]

It may not be a crime for a citizen but if you don't have it you can be detained until you show it.

Depending on circumstances, has it not been this way, in every state, for a long time? Whats the big deal? What does that have to do with the thread other than a strawman argument? Also, you stated earlier it was a requirement to carry for citizens...thanks for admitting its not a crime therefore wrong.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, spidey made and unsubstantiated claim so I made one too to show how easy it was and then said neither one of them had a place in a reasoned debate.



Spidey claimed they changed the law as a negotiating tactic and you showed it was due to the lawsuits.

meh ok

All the people of AZ face possible detainment if they do not have their papers on them.



They can go without ID but they open themselves up to being detained until someone brings in their papers.

Oh look. An unsubstantiated claim.

That truck driver had his wife bring in his birth certificate but imagine what a pain it would be if you lived alone and didn't have anyone that could get to your stuff?

Had he had an AZ license he could have been proven legal in 5 minutes. Besides, we dont know the circumstances behind his detainment. I am willing to give the LEO benefit of the doubt given the heat thats been on them for several years.

Could you show me how it's the same as federal law?

Its been posted in this, and other threads. Lets do this because its a shorter list...how about you post where it oversteps federal law

Let me help you out by providing that list:

.

 

[Svnla]

I would go after the companies that employ them hard. Much better than giving up freedom.

What about those illegals that don't work but make money by criminal means such as traffic drugs, prostitution, extortion, gangs, guns, and so on?

What about those illegals that are driving around without licenses <hence they are so pissed off at this new AZ law> and no insurance? Who will pay for the damages when they hit someone?

What do you do with millions of ILLEGALS that are already here? Amnesty won't work, look at the 1986 amnesty, it encouraged more illegals to break the laws.

Showing ID is losing freedom? That's new to me. The last time I check, all the polls showed the majority of legal residents and US citizens support this. The primary people that complaining are illegals, illegals lovers, illegals families, illegals anchor babies/children, the left (so more votes for them), and the churches (so more money for them).

 

[flavio]

Depending on circumstances, has it not been this way, in every state, for a long time?

No.

Whats the big deal? What does that have to do with the thread other than a strawman argument?

Many people don't like the idea of possibly being detained until they prove they are legal if they leave the house without their papers.

Also, you stated earlier it was a requirement to carry for citizens...thanks for admitting its not a crime therefore wrong.

It's a requirement if you don't want to face possible detainment. I didn't say it was a crime.

Oh look. An unsubstantiated claim.

It's not unsubstantiated. All the people of AZ face possible detainment if they do not have their papers on them. Just like what happened to the truck driver.

Had he had an AZ license he could have been proven legal in 5 minutes.

A truck driver carrying his CDL. Should be good right?

Besides, we dont know the circumstances behind his detainment.

Weigh station stop.

Its been posted in this, and other threads.

Cool, should be easy for you to show how they're the same then. That's convenient. I'm specifically interested in the circumstances where someone can be asked for their papers.

 

[flavio]

What about those illegals that don't work but make money by criminal means such as traffic drugs, prostitution, extortion, gangs, guns, and so on?

Check their status upon arrest?

What about those illegals that are driving around without licenses <hence they are so pissed off at this new AZ law> and no insurance? Who will pay for the damages when they hit someone?

Driving without insurance is a crime right? If they hit someone and don't have insurance there is a good opportunity to check their papers right?

What do you do with millions of ILLEGALS that are already here? Amnesty won't work, look at the 1986 amnesty, it encouraged more illegals to break the laws.

Cracking down on the businesses that employ them would go a long way. Check peoples status without giving up everyone's freedom.

Showing ID is losing freedom? That's new to me.

Opening yourself up to being detained if you leave your house without your papers is certainly less freedom.

The primary people that complaining are illegals, illegals lovers, illegals families, illegals anchor babies/children, the left (so more votes for them), and the churches (so more money for them).

Unsubstantiated claim.

 

[blackangst1]

No.

Really? Which state, if police have reasonable suspicion to question you, would you not be detained for not provding ID? Provide statutes please.

Many people don't like the idea of possibly being detained until they prove they are legal if they leave the house without their papers.

Two things. First, you have not provided, as asked, AZ statutes that require everyone to carry papers. Second, you have yet to explain what constitutional freedoms are being given up.

It's a requirement if you don't want to face possible detainment. I didn't say it was a crime.

Requirement? For non aliens? Really? It is? Which AZ statute says this exactly? Should be easy for you since you seem so knowledgable.

It's not unsubstantiated. All the people of AZ face possible detainment if they do not have their papers on them. Just like what happened to the truck driver.

Its also possible you could be be arraigned, tried, and sentenced to death for a murder you didnt commit. Therefore I suggest you never be alone, and always have an alibi for your whereabouts. I mean, it IS possible.

A truck driver carrying his CDL. Should be good right?

Havent we been over this? The answer, for the third time, is no.

Weigh station stop.

And what were the circumstances that lead to LEO's suspicion?

Cool, should be easy for you to show how they're the same then. That's convenient. I'm specifically interested in the circumstances where someone can be asked for their papers.

Are you too lazy to read back? Not my problem. Its there. The AZ law mirrors federal law. Nothing more, nothing less. Here's a link for your convenience to title VIII of federal law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_II_30_VIII.html

Since you seem so knowledgable about immigration it should be easy for you to point out differences. One doesnt point out similarities in debates when taking seemingly opposite sides. Differences are. So point em out.

I'll start you out by showing you a similarity regarding showing your papers:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IX > &#167; 1357
&#167; 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant&#8212;
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

AZ law: For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.


Will this law be inconvenient for some? Probably. But so is federal law regarding international travel. You see, I travel out of country often, and its really a pain in the ass to come home. But tough shit. My rights arent being violated though, and neither are anyone elses. So if youre arguing its a PITA, I'll agree. If youre arguing its in violation to law, you havent provided any support for that, and many state and federal cases have been provided in this thread to support it. Not really sure what your arguing any more.

 

[bob4432]

flavio is the perfect example of why CA is so fucked up and why no states want them. troll, troll, troll and can't comprehend shit.

 

[Throckmorton]

blackangst1, does any state require you to have an ID? If not, how can they require you to have the unrequired ID on you?

 

[ElFenix]

that sinema congresswoman sounds like someone who isn't a lawyer. 'stop' in criminal procedure is a known term of art.

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

An out of state license might be accepted if you are required to prove your legal status to get it. A lot of them don't.

those strings aren't in the bill. where are you getting them?

edit: different versions. apparently the house added a bunch of stupid crap to the senate version.

 

[flavio]

Really? Which state, if police have reasonable suspicion to question you, would you not be detained for not provding ID? Provide statutes please.

In CA we do not have to prove our citizenship on potentially any police contact and my daughter can safely walk around without papers. Not the same at all.

Two things. First, you have not provided, as asked, AZ statutes that require everyone to carry papers. Second, you have yet to explain what constitutional freedoms are being given up.

You must have papers if you don't want to be detained. You may not be charged if you don't have them but you could certainly be detained until you provide them. Please provide me with a way that I can avoid being detained without my papers. Otherwise that would be the freedom your giving up.

Requirement? For non aliens? Really? It is? Which AZ statute says this exactly? Should be easy for you since you seem so knowledgable.

Once again please provide me with the method that a non alien can avoid being detained if they are suspected of being illegal without papers.

Its also possible you could be be arraigned, tried, and sentenced to death for a murder you didnt commit. Therefore I suggest you never be alone, and always have an alibi for your whereabouts. I mean, it IS possible.

That is possible, but the AZ has made it extremely likely that citizens without their papers will be detained until they provide the proper documents to prove their legal status.

Havent we been over this? The answer, for the third time, is no.

He'd be good everywhere else except AZ. There is less freedom in AZ.

And what were the circumstances that lead to LEO's suspicion?

Maybe because he looked hispanic while driving? What are the circumstances that constitute "reasonable suspicion" anyway? I know I've asked this before but nobody has had an answer yet.

Are you too lazy to read back? Not my problem. Its there. The AZ law mirrors federal law. Nothing more, nothing less. Here's a link for your convenience to title VIII of federal law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_II_30_VIII.html

Since you seem so knowledgable about immigration it should be easy for you to point out differences. One doesnt point out similarities in debates when taking seemingly opposite sides. Differences are. So point em out.

Similarities or differences are good depending on the number. I'm focused on a pretty specific thing so it shouldn't be hard.

I'll start you out by showing you a similarity regarding showing your papers:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IX > § 1357
§ 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

This looks like it applies to immigration officers operating on port of entries. Not any kind of general US law throughout the country.

(c) Search without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized and designated under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, whether individually or as one of a class, shall have power to conduct a search, without warrant, of the person, and of the personal effects in the possession of any person seeking admission to the United States, concerning whom such officer or employee may have reasonable cause to suspect that grounds exist for denial of admission to the United States under this chapter which would be disclosed by such search.

 

[flavio]

flavio is the perfect example of why CA is so fucked up and why no states want them.

WTF fuck are you talking about? Should I just say AZ is fucked up and no states want them?

You contribute nothing dumbass.

troll, troll, troll and can't comprehend shit.

Specify where I trolled, what I can't comprehend, or where I was wrong. Otherwise STFU because you are the idiot troll.

 

[blackangst1]

blackangst1, does any state require you to have an ID? If not, how can they require you to have the unrequired ID on you?

Although there are no statutes that Im aware of of specifically carrying ID, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, it was decided police may detain you until you prove your identity if they have a reason to believe you might be connected to a crime. There are caveats, some state some federal...like aliens, military bases, airports, etc. Also, stop and identify states (23 of them) are a little different, as explained in this thread.

 

[her209]

more talking point? where did you get them from?

anyway, answered in this video from a local interview w/ the governor

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Gov-Brewer-sits-down-with-3TV-to-talk-about-SB-1070-92506274.html

also, amended language
http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Lawmakers-amend-language-of-SB-1070-92499929.html

LOL... why would you think it would be a talking point? I was thinking of situations where citizens could find ways to report suspected illegal aliens without actually making exactly such a report.

Thanks for the link. It was exactly as I suspected:

In a move that's troubling to 1070 opponents, the trailer bill also indicates that police who come ito contact with people over possible violations of local civil ordinances -- for example, playing music too loud -- may ask about immigration status if they believe it's warranted.

 

[Tristicus]

Specify where I trolled, what I can't comprehend, or where I was wrong. Otherwise STFU because you are the idiot troll.

You could start with reading your posts.

 

[blackangst1]

In CA we do not have to prove our citizenship on potentially any police contact and my daughter can safely walk around without papers. Not the same at all.

Are you saying if you or your daughter fit the description of someone who is wanted for questioning, or even you either knowingly or unknowingly are acting suspicious, they cant hold hold you until you provide proof? Really? Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada disagrees with you. Specifically in stop and identify states, the court determined police may arrest you if they have reasonable suspicion, and identity is not given. Now, reasonable suspicion is a vague standard which has been challenged on a case by case basis. But Im not aware of any abuses by LEO under this statute (which EVERY state has). Nevada law, for example, specifically requires EVERYONE to identify themselves, and refusal to do so IS a crime. So, its a paradox of sorts. Its not illegal to NOT carry ID, but it IS illegal not be able to identify yourself if questioned. Thats a hellofa lot more strict than AZ and I dont see you railing against them, or rather you probably didnt know. But Nevada's laws about identify are stricter than AZ, as AZ law does not state identification IS required by citizens. So, in short, there are no statutes by any state, including AZ, which REQUIRE citizens to carry ID; however!, in every state, under reasonable suspicion, LEO may detain you for up to 72 hours until your identity is proven. Its been this way for a long time. Do you remember the case of Henry Louis Gates in CA who was arrested, in his own home, after showing ID, becase LEO was responding to a home break in at his house? So reasonable suspicion laws, although vague, are present everywhere. And, again, in the Hiibel case, it was determined that you ARE required to give your name if asked, and if they have reasonable suspicion, may hold you until your identity proven.

How about this case in OH: http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

Me: &#8220;I&#8217;m required by law to state that my name is Michael Righi, but I do not have to provide you with my driver&#8217;s license since I am not operating a vehicle.&#8221;
Officer Arroyo: &#8220;Give me your driver&#8217;s license or I will place you under arrest.&#8221;
Me: &#8220;My name is Michael Righi. I am not willing to provide you with my driver&#8217;s license.&#8221;
Officer Arroyo: &#8220;Turn around and up against the wall.&#8221;

Now, his case was eventually thrown out, but the point is, AZ laws and its law enforcement are no more strict than anywhere else when it comes to reasonable suspicion.

You must have papers if you don't want to be detained. You may not be charged if you don't have them but you could certainly be detained until you provide them. Please provide me with a way that I can avoid being detained without my papers. Otherwise that would be the freedom your giving up.

See my answer above. This is not excusive to AZ

Once again please provide me with the method that a non alien can avoid being detained if they are suspected of being illegal without papers.

Again, we have been over this, and you keep asking the same questions worded differently. If someone is an AZ resident, with an AZ ID/tribal card/license, these records can be pulled up via laptop. Can you provide a method one can someone can avoid being detained in CA if Im suspected of commiting a crime ANYWHERE?

That is possible, but the AZ has made it extremely likely that citizens without their papers will be detained until they provide the proper documents to prove their legal status.

You keep repeating this without providing evidence, which you seem to be so fond of. So, its speculation. I will say though AZ LEO are very careful because of the attention the state has gotten from Sherrif Joe. In fact, since 2004, he has been the target of over 2100 lawsuits in US district court, and hundreds more in Maricopa county, and NONE have come to fruition. Given the attention LEO gets here, sloppiness and heavy handedness wouldnt fly.

He'd be good everywhere else except AZ. There is less freedom in AZ.

You DO understand, dont you, it was ICE that held the trucker, not AZ LEO, right? And you DO understand, dont you, that ICE is federal?

Maybe because he looked hispanic while driving? What are the circumstances that constitute "reasonable suspicion" anyway? I know I've asked this before but nobody has had an answer yet.

There is much about the case we dont know, and it happened recently so we'll see if if a lawsuit is filed. You assume we know all the circumstances behind his being held, which is arrogant. Actually it has been discussed ad nauseum in this and the other immigration thread. Also, youre a big boy...Im sure you know how to use Google.

Similarities or differences are good depending on the number. I'm focused on a pretty specific thing so it shouldn't be hard.
This looks like it applies to immigration officers operating on port of entries. Not any kind of general US law throughout the country.

Well, youre interpratation is different than the the rest of the country. It applies to aliens anywhere within the borders of the USA. Part c that you quoted is a description under a certain circumstance. You need to re-read the law. What you did would be like me saying Title VIII only applies to those suspected of controlled substance abuse per

(d) Detainer of aliens for violation of controlled substances laws
In the case of an alien who is arrested by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official for a violation of any law relating to controlled substances, if the official (or another official)&#8212;

youre picking out a subsection of the law and claiming that is the entirety of the law.



In closing, we can go back and forth like this all day long with you continually changing wording, but the fact is you have yet to provide proof (again, something youre fond of) of any freedoms being taken away with this bill, with supporting AZ law. You also have failed to provide evidence that SB1070 oversteps federal law, and why. These seem to be your two contentions. You provided a news article about a trucker. Woohoo. I provided an article about someone arrested, for no apperent reason, for failure to provide ID. Woohoo.

 

[shadow9d9]

You could start with reading your posts.

You could start with providing evidence instead of "you are guilty because I said so."

Don't have my opinion? "Troll!". That is all the word means now.

 

[bob4432]

LOL... why would you think it would be a talking point? I was thinking of situations where citizens could find ways to report suspected illegal aliens without actually making exactly such a report.

Thanks for the link. It was exactly as I suspected:

drop houses get called on because of their activity level - none, then van backing into garages late at night, then no activity, or one of the illegal immigrants escaping and contacting someone to let them know the situation, but i have never heard of a family being called on. not to say it hasn't/doesn't happen, but i have never even heard of such an action in my entire life of living in the phx, az vicinity.

your view of people in az is rather weird, we don't sit around looking for what we might think of is an illegal family and then call leo. we would like for the feds to fix the problem and many legal immigrants are not too happy w/ an amnesty solution, but the feds have failed (for years) and will continue until they need the votes, again, my prediction is 2011/early 2012 for obvious political reasons.

 

[flavio]

You could start with reading your posts.

My posts look great, so your going to have to be specific. Troll.

 

[blackangst1]

My posts look great, so your going to have to be specific. Troll.

Well, other than repeating the same questions over and over and over even though its been answered and discussed over and over and over...

 

[DucatiMonster696]

My posts look great, so your going to have to be specific. Troll.

I bet they look like stellar posts in "YOUR HEAD" alone.