Arizona signs immigration bill into law

[bob4432]

Stupid law that will be challenged instantly on the grounds of 4th amendment.

read the law, then read the fed law and then look at how far the fed gov has gotten going against sheriff joe since he is enforcing the law. part of this az law doesn't allow certain cities to limit their police in enforcing laws, which they were doing.

 

[blackangst1]

Stupid law that will be challenged instantly on the grounds of 4th amendment.

Fail. Asking someone questions is not search nor seizure, and this law does not allow bypass of probable cause.

 

[James Bond]

Seems like it could get exploited easy if the cop is having a bad day.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Given the constant inaction on this issue over the years I'm not too upset to see something like this pass, despite a couple of aspects with it I'm not completely comfortable with.

 

[halik]

This SCOTUS case is pretty relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

I would find it hard to believe that "suspicion of being illegal" ie looking brown or speaking spanish would pass the "reasonable suspicion" test.

Plus the other issue is self-incrimination.

 

[halik]

Fail. Asking someone questions is not search nor seizure, and this law does not allow bypass of probable cause.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Stop and identify clauses generally extend to just name (ie to be able to clear your instantly) and there's a "reasonable suspicion" test for being able to ask for identification. Cops can't just walk up to you and start asking you questions and if you refuse, charge you with obstruction. Many laws like that have been struck down as unconstitutional.

Where's Wolf999 or whatever is his handle; need a con lawyer stat.

 

[OutHouse]

Taking a dump on the Constitution is the lessor of two evils?

dump not found

 

[OutHouse]

Seems like it could get exploited easy if the cop is having a bad day.

that can happen with any law.

 

[IronWing]

Fail. Asking someone questions is not search nor seizure, and this law does not allow bypass of probable cause.

In a society where we traditionally are very rarely required to demonstrate proof of citizenship or legal residency, this law is a fundamental change. On the street, at the time of contact, the question has been shifted from a law officer needing to show probable cause that a person has committed a crime (trespass in this case) to a person being required to show evidence that their mere presence is not itself a crime.

 

[xj0hnx]

Stupid law that will be challenged instantly on the grounds of 4th amendment. Actually 5th also.

How can you ask an illegal about his/her immigration statue without self-incrimination?

Really? Can you point to where in the fourth amendment is says cops can not ask for ID?

I agree with Ironwing that there are much better ways to go about doing this. Fining employers is a good start, but probably won't happen on a big enough scale.

 

[boomerang]

We're screening airline passengers based on their country of origin now. A common sense solution that's been a long time coming. We're screening them because there is a high probability that if someone is going to blow up an airliner, they will be from one of these countries.

This can be applied pretty much directly to the problem of illegal immigration. You don't have to have a PhD to realize that the majority of illegals around the southern border of the U.S. are from Mexico. They have broken the law to come here and as such we have the right to discern who they are and deal with them in an appropriate manner. You can call it profiling, you can it whatever you want, but it's mirroring a policy put in place by this administration to deal with terrorists.

If I was arguing this before the SCOTUS, I would be bringing up these policies.

 

[OutHouse]

its sickening how the feds and the prez are going to find ways to prevent AZ from enforcing laws that the FEDS should be doing in the first place.

 

[blackangst1]

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Stop and identify clauses generally extend to just name (ie to be able to clear your instantly) and there's a "reasonable suspicion" test for being able to ask for identification. Cops can't just walk up to you and start asking you questions and if you refuse, charge you with obstruction. Many laws like that have been struck down as unconstitutional.

Fair anough. We already are one of 24 states that have stop and identify laws (Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12 (enacted 2005)) so I dont see how this bill steps on that.

 

[halik]

Really? Can you point to where in the fourth amendment is says cops can not ask for ID?

Without reasonable suspicion of a crime commited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

 

[blackangst1]

In a society where we traditionally are very rarely required to demonstrate proof of citizenship or legal residency, this law is a fundamental change. On the street, at the time of contact, the question has been shifted from a law officer needing to show probable cause that a person has committed a crime (trespass in this case) to a person being required to show evidence that their mere presence is not itself a crime.

24 states already have stop and identify laws. This is no shift from anything.

 

[halik]

Fair anough. We already are one of 24 states that have stop and identify laws (Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12 (enacted 2005)) so I dont see how this bill steps on that.

The reasonable suspicion part - looking like a latino or drifter/loiter/etc or something doesn't pass the test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

 

[blackangst1]

Without reasonable suspicion of a crime commited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

Yes. From the link you gave me earlier:
“Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that require persons detained under certain circumstances to identify themselves to a police officer.[1]
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that such laws did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name.

 

[blackangst1]

The reasonable suspicion part - looking like a latino or drifter/loiter/etc or something doesn't pass the test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

Loitering certainly does.

 

[IronWing]

We're screening airline passengers based on their country of origin now. A common sense solution that's been a long time coming. We're screening them because there is a high probability that if someone is going to blow up an airliner, they will be from one of these countries.

This can be applied pretty much directly to the problem of illegal immigration. You don't have to have a PhD to realize that the majority of illegals around the southern border of the U.S. are from Mexico. They have broken the law to come here and as such we have the right to discern who they are and deal with them in an appropriate manner. You can call it profiling, you can it whatever you want, but it's mirroring a policy put in place by this administration to deal with terrorists.

If I was arguing this before the SCOTUS, I would be bringing up these policies.

There is an enormous difference here. The airline passengers are being screened because we already know where they come from. In the case of the AZ law, driving while brown, walking while brown, or just happening to walk past a cop who is in a pissy mood is grounds for screening. I know it shocks the hell out of folks but not all folks who look like Mexicans are from Mexico.

 

[xj0hnx]

Without reasonable suspicion of a crime commited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

Problem here is that it IS a crime to be in this country illegally.

 

[halik]

Yes. From the link you gave me earlier:
“Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that require persons detained under certain circumstances to identify themselves to a police officer.[1]
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that such laws did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name.

Read the Hiibel case - SCOTUS said the "reasonable suspicion" test was passed, the since he cop had a call about a guy in red pickup truck beating up a girl in it. The cop came across a red pickup truck with a guy in the back and girl in it.

 

[thegimp03]

"Earlier, President Obama called the bill "misguided" and said it could violate people's civil rights. He said he's instructed the Justice Department to see if it is legal."

Haha. Violating people's civil rights? The people are here illegally. They violated immigration laws. Logic fail, Obama.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally Posted by blackangst1
Yes. From the link you gave me earlier:
“Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that require persons detained under certain circumstances to identify themselves to a police officer.[1]
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that such laws did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name.

Read the Hiibel case - SCOTUS said the "reasonable suspicion" test was passed, the since he cop had a call about a guy in red pickup truck beating up a girl in it. The cop came across a red pickup truck with a guy in the back and girl in it.

OK...and? Are we arguing the same thing here?

 

[SAWYER]

Something has to be done, we sure as hell can't rely on the Federal incompetents to do anything.

 

[halik]

Problem here is that it IS a crime to be in this country illegally.

Right but there's no good way to discern whether a person is or isn't by just looking at them (the 'reasonable suspicion' part). It's the same thing like that Cali case, seeing a hobo-looking guy in a nice neighborhood doesn't pass the reasonable suspicion part either.