Arizona signs immigration bill into law

[blackangst1]

Best question I heard asked Gov. Jan Brewer "what does an illegal alien look like?"

Can you answer this question?

I can. They look like everyone else. They arent mexican, they arent asian, they arent russian, they arent european. Theyre fucking illegal. They look like legal aliens and citzens, except they fucking broke the law to get here. And they will be discovered upon further investigation.

Next question?

 

[bob4432]

Best question I heard asked Gov. Jan Brewer "what does an illegal alien look like?"

Can you answer this question?

the question can't be answered because an illegal immigrant could be anybody - white, black, yellow, red, brown, etc. therefore, it is necessary for leo to gather the information after a encounter that wouldn't step on a citizens constitutional rights. thus the fact that the questions to determine citizenship would be after some other infraction. all in the bill for those that can read.

if anybody thinks this is a 'gotcha' moment that the gov was 'got' on, far from it, she answered the question correctly. anybody claim they know what an illegal immigrant looks like is full of shit.

 

[flavio]

thus the fact that the questions to determine citizenship would be after some other infraction. all in the bill for those that can read.

You are completely wrong. Nothing in the bill says there has to be another infraction. I guess you don't read so well.

What happened bob? How can you not understand the law? it is written in simple language, less than 20 pages. again, just keep getting your talking points from your right overlords and look like an ass when in less than 30mins you could read and comprehend the law and realize you have been lied to by the media.

"Lawful contact can occur in many instances when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime," she said. "A consensual encounter, such as asking a police officer for directions, reporting a crime to a police officer, or being a victim of a crime or a witness and being questioned by a police officer, is a 'lawful encounter.' Also lawful are some stops premised on absolutely no individualized reasonable suspicion -- think about DUI checkpoints where everyone is stopped even if there is no individualized suspicion for the stop. The bill is clear that so long as the initial encounter is lawful, a police officer can then ascertain my legal status upon suspicion that I am undocumented. So Huppenthal is wrong if he maintains that only those suspected of criminal activity can be questioned regarding status. Under the plain language of the law, any time the police engage in a lawful encounter, that is enough to trigger the inquiry into status upon reasonable suspicion."

And some of the potential crimes that could lead to questioning involve seemingly inoccuous actions.

In an effort to curb day laborer gathering points -- the ad-hoc spots where illegal immigrants have often offered themselves as informal laborers -- the law makes it unlawful "for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." It also is now "unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work [or] solicit work in a public place." And how does the law define "solicit"? As a "verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed."

So, presumably, anyone getting into a car, or making a gesture or a nod in a public place, could fall under suspicion of violating these laws -- which in turn could open the door to an individual being questioned about their immigration status.

None of this means that law enforcement officers will fully exercise these powers -- or that judges will let them. But most legal experts we asked felt that the law opened the door to police questioning of individuals who are not specifically suspected of committing a crime."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

 

[blackangst1]

You are completely wrong. Nothing in the bill says there has to be another infraction. I guess you don't read so well.

What happened bob? How can you not understand the law? it is written in simple language, less than 20 pages. again, just keep getting your talking points from your right overlords and look like an ass when in less than 30mins you could read and comprehend the law and realize you have been lied to by the media.

"Lawful contact can occur in many instances when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime," she said. "A consensual encounter, such as asking a police officer for directions, reporting a crime to a police officer, or being a victim of a crime or a witness and being questioned by a police officer, is a 'lawful encounter.' Also lawful are some stops premised on absolutely no individualized reasonable suspicion -- think about DUI checkpoints where everyone is stopped even if there is no individualized suspicion for the stop. The bill is clear that so long as the initial encounter is lawful, a police officer can then ascertain my legal status upon suspicion that I am undocumented. So Huppenthal is wrong if he maintains that only those suspected of criminal activity can be questioned regarding status. Under the plain language of the law, any time the police engage in a lawful encounter, that is enough to trigger the inquiry into status upon reasonable suspicion."

And some of the potential crimes that could lead to questioning involve seemingly inoccuous actions.

In an effort to curb day laborer gathering points -- the ad-hoc spots where illegal immigrants have often offered themselves as informal laborers -- the law makes it unlawful "for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." It also is now "unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work [or] solicit work in a public place." And how does the law define "solicit"? As a "verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed."

So, presumably, anyone getting into a car, or making a gesture or a nod in a public place, could fall under suspicion of violating these laws -- which in turn could open the door to an individual being questioned about their immigration status.

None of this means that law enforcement officers will fully exercise these powers -- or that judges will let them. But most legal experts we asked felt that the law opened the door to police questioning of individuals who are not specifically suspected of committing a crime."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

Technically bob was wrong; however, you DO understand what lawful contact is, right? Since you linked it? No one can be asked for papers for being mexican, asian, russina, etc. You understand that right?

 

[flavio]

Technically bob was wrong; however, you DO understand what lawful contact is, right? Since you linked it?

I understand lawful contact alright. I've been "lawfully contacted" enough times to know that it can mean just about anything. Walking home late at night in an area where there was a supposed purse snatching (handcuffed for an hour), leaving an apartment complex where there was a supposed robbery (handcuffed for an hour again), walking home late at night when there was no reported crime (no handcuffs but I was interrogated and asked for ID), making a legal turn around at a toll plaza (given a DUI test), and many others.

Yes, I know what it means. If the cops want to contact you they will find an excuse. Any of those times above I could have been in jail under this AZ law if I did not have my papers on me.

No one can be asked for papers for being mexican, asian, russina, etc.

That's iffy with the "reasonable suspicion" bit but it doesn't matter so much for my point. That fact that anyone could end up in jail until you can produce your papers is the main problem here.

 

[bob4432]

You are completely wrong. Nothing in the bill says there has to be another infraction. I guess you don't read so well.

What happened bob? How can you not understand the law? it is written in simple language, less than 20 pages. again, just keep getting your talking points from your right overlords and look like an ass when in less than 30mins you could read and comprehend the law and realize you have been lied to by the media.

"Lawful contact can occur in many instances when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime," she said. "A consensual encounter, such as asking a police officer for directions, reporting a crime to a police officer, or being a victim of a crime or a witness and being questioned by a police officer, is a 'lawful encounter.' Also lawful are some stops premised on absolutely no individualized reasonable suspicion -- think about DUI checkpoints where everyone is stopped even if there is no individualized suspicion for the stop. The bill is clear that so long as the initial encounter is lawful, a police officer can then ascertain my legal status upon suspicion that I am undocumented. So Huppenthal is wrong if he maintains that only those suspected of criminal activity can be questioned regarding status. Under the plain language of the law, any time the police engage in a lawful encounter, that is enough to trigger the inquiry into status upon reasonable suspicion."

And some of the potential crimes that could lead to questioning involve seemingly inoccuous actions.

In an effort to curb day laborer gathering points -- the ad-hoc spots where illegal immigrants have often offered themselves as informal laborers -- the law makes it unlawful "for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." It also is now "unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work [or] solicit work in a public place." And how does the law define "solicit"? As a "verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed."

So, presumably, anyone getting into a car, or making a gesture or a nod in a public place, could fall under suspicion of violating these laws -- which in turn could open the door to an individual being questioned about their immigration status.

None of this means that law enforcement officers will fully exercise these powers -- or that judges will let them. But most legal experts we asked felt that the law opened the door to police questioning of individuals who are not specifically suspected of committing a crime."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

show me where it says that for no reason a person can be stopped.

right overlords - fuck you, independent FTW!!!!

 

[flavio]

show me where it says that for no reason a person can be stopped.

That is not what you claimed. You said "thus the fact that the questions to determine citizenship would be after some other infraction. all in the bill for those that can read."

That was proven completely wrong. You can be forced to prove your citizenship for any number of reasons that do not involve committing an infraction.

Also, you aren't supposed to be stopped for "no reason" but we all know the police can always find a reason to stop you. You don't have to be doing anything illegal. I've been stopped many many times when I was doing nothing illegal. You could even be a witness, a victim, or reporting a crime.

So what's happened in AZ is that all of the people have been opened up to detainment and incarceration for possibly "any reason".

 

[dmcowen674]

Huge influx up here. The local police were talking about this in the Dunkin Donut shop and said they will stop everyone in support of Arizona.

 

[blackangst1]

I understand lawful contact alright. I've been "lawfully contacted" enough times to know that it can mean just about anything. Walking home late at night in an area where there was a supposed purse snatching (handcuffed for an hour), leaving an apartment complex where there was a supposed robbery (handcuffed for an hour again), walking home late at night when there was no reported crime (no handcuffs but I was interrogated and asked for ID), making a legal turn around at a toll plaza (given a DUI test), and many others.

Yes, I know what it means. If the cops want to contact you they will find an excuse. Any of those times above I could have been in jail under this AZ law if I did not have my papers on me.

And in those examples contact was justified. Oh and BTW genious...if federal law were actually enforced, you would have carry your papers in any state in the union. But Im sure you know that too, right?

 

[blackangst1]

That is not what you claimed. You said "thus the fact that the questions to determine citizenship would be after some other infraction. all in the bill for those that can read."

That was proven completely wrong. You can be forced to prove your citizenship for any number of reasons that do not involve committing an infraction.

Also, you aren't supposed to be stopped for "no reason" but we all know the police can always find a reason to stop you. You don't have to be doing anything illegal. I've been stopped many many times when I was doing nothing illegal. You could even be a witness, a victim, or reporting a crime.

So what's happened in AZ is that all of the people have been opened up to detainment and incarceration for possibly "any reason".

Youre either ignorant or naive. Your last sentence...is wrong. Do you not see a conflict where federal law clearly states an alien with any kind of visa is required, again by federal law (US Code Title 8 Section 1304(E), to carry said paperwork with them, no matter where they go, yet states have initiated laws that prevent that law from being enforced? You dont see a problem with that? What the new AZ law does is allow federal law that has been in place for decades to actually be enforced.

 

[blackangst1]

Huge influx up here. The local police were talking about this in the Dunkin Donut shop and said they will stop everyone in support of Arizona.

Good. You can have them (wherever it is you happen to be now).

 

[nick1985]

Good. You can have them (wherever it is you happen to be now).

We already do have them. Dave is in northern Illinois with me. Its an infestation with illegals here. They get a pretty nice benefit package living here I think, I work for a county government and the county health department has a steady stream of illegals in there all day long. You cant even get a job as a receptionist at the health department unless you speak spanish.

They dont just hop the border and go to Illinois for no reason. Free health benefits FTW

 

[DAGTA]

Glad to see my state finally has a governor with a back-bone.

 

[HomerJS]

I can. They look like everyone else. They arent mexican, they arent asian, they arent russian, they arent european. Theyre fucking illegal. They look like legal aliens and citzens, except they fucking broke the law to get here. And they will be discovered upon further investigation.

Next question?

Aww that was nice, you get a cookie. Your answer was better then the governer who said "I don't know". Herein lies the problem, the new law would require an investigation based on how someone looks. You would be the mose highly sought after person by law enforcement if you could identify criminals by looks alone.

Take for example someone getting pulled over for speeding and thay don't have a license, that investegation would discover if someone were illegal. Current law already allows for this.

 

[spidey07]

Aww that was nice, you get a cookie. Your answer was better then the governer who said "I don't know". Herein lies the problem, the new law would require an investigation based on how someone looks. You would be the mose highly sought after person by law enforcement if you could identify criminals by looks alone.

Take for example someone getting pulled over for speeding and thay don't have a license, that investegation would discover if someone were illegal. Current law already allows for this.

No it would not have anything to do with how somebody looked. More like how they answered a few questions like "where do you live, what's your address". Failure to answer these means your homeless or illegal.

Stop making this whole thing about race, it makes you look like a racist.

 

[blackangst1]

Aww that was nice, you get a cookie. Your answer was better then the governer who said "I don't know". Herein lies the problem, the new law would require an investigation based on how someone looks. You would be the mose highly sought after person by law enforcement if you could identify criminals by looks alone.

Take for example someone getting pulled over for speeding and thay don't have a license, that investegation would discover if someone were illegal. Current law already allows for this.

Here let me fix your statement to make it true:

the new law would make possible an investigation based on how someone acts.

As far as your second statement, it is also false. If LEO pulls over someone and they dont have a license, they would start asking questions as to who they were. They would call in whatever name they were given to try and prove their identity. A citizen can be verified in 5 minutes. (BTW ANYONE would be subject to this no matter what race you are...maybe you assume if theyre white the cop says "Ah ok go ahead then. I really dont need your name. Drive safely!") If that cannot be verified, they will be assumed to be an alien. At this point, under current law, thats as far as it goes. They are not allowed to ask their immigration status. With the new law, they can.

Get the difference?

 

[Patranus]

No it would not have anything to do with how somebody looked. More like how they answered a few questions like "where do you live, what's your address". Failure to answer these means your homeless or illegal.

Stop making this whole thing about race, it makes you look like a racist.

You don't even have to ask those things.
Police asks for ID.
Person produces American ID and they are run for warrants. Something looks suspicious or the information doesn't match which warrants further investigation including their legal status.

Person produces foreign ID. Police ask for their immigration documents which they are required to carry around under FEDERAL law. Person cannot produce their immigration documents and that requires further investigation including their legal status.

Pretty simply process if you ask me.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I recall the last trip I made with my wife to Montreal she had left her green card at home. We didn't discover this until we were driving home and she went to dig it out for the border crossing at 1000 Islands. At that point she assumed she had left it back at her mothers place in Montreal so in our worst case scenario we would have to drive all the way back. When we pulled up to the customs agent we gave him our drivers licenses and told him my wife had forgotten her green card. He joking replied "forgot your green card, how do you expect to get back in the country!?" He then asked a couple of the standard questions regarding how long we had been in Canada, handed us our licenses and we were on our way.

I went down to Tecate, Mexico with some engineers I worked with about a year and half ago, one of whom forgot his passport. We entered Mexico in the morning and then on the way back we were joking around about this guy who forgot his passport (he was in the car in front of us) but they let him back in to the country with no trouble.

BTW-The guy driving the car I was in is a U.S. citizen but was originally from Afghanistan, they just asked us for our passports, scanned them and let us through.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Aww that was nice, you get a cookie. Your answer was better then the governer who said "I don't know". Herein lies the problem, the new law would require an investigation based on how someone looks. You would be the mose highly sought after person by law enforcement if you could identify criminals by looks alone.

Take for example someone getting pulled over for speeding and thay don't have a license, that investegation would discover if someone were illegal. Current law already allows for this.

The problem is this law allows, hell it encourages, police to stop people simply based on the color of their skin. Imagine the hell that would break loose if a state passed a law stating the police can pull you over for driving while black because we all know that black people commit most of the crime.

 

[sandorski]

When in Arizona and you're walking down the street and you see a Cop coming towards you, it's time to go to the other side.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

 

[RedCOMET]

LOL. only in America would undocumented = illeagal.

Said day

 

[spidey07]

LOL. only in America would undocumented = illeagal.

Said day

It's like that in every other country as well. Try to get a job in another country, especially without any proof of who you are and if you're a citizen or not. Just being in the country (almost any country) without some documentation is a crime and in other countries the penalties are MUCH stiffer than ours.

 

[RedCOMET]

oh, I never bothered actually reading most of this thread, but for all those AZ americans why don't hey just get their passport, and sign up for a passport ID card, you know the wallet sized one?

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

The passport card is an alternative to an ordinary U.S. passport booklet for land and sea travel within North America (Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda). Like the passport book, the passport card is issued only to U.S. citizens and nationals. However, the passport card cannot currently be used for international air travel.

<cut>

The passport card is being issued by the United States Department of State in response to border community residents' needs for a less expensive and more portable alternative to the conventional booklet since the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative's requirements for travelers to carry a single document verifying both identification and citizenship have come into effect. In an effort to improve efficiency at land crossings, the passport card also includes a vicinity-read radio frequency identification chip with a unique identifying number tied to government databases; unlike the passport book, the RFID chip in the passport card is designed to be readable at a greater distance and will not contain any information from the MRZ of the passport card beyond the identifying number. To prevent the RFID chip from being read when the card is not being used, the passport card comes with a sleeve designed to block RFID while inside.[3]

Under the REAL ID Act, the passport card will also be accepted for federal purposes (such as domestic air travel or entering federal buildings), which may make it an attractive option for people living in states whose driver's licenses and ID cards are not REAL ID-compliant when those requirements go into effect. TSA regulations list the passport card as an acceptable identity document at airport security checkpoints.[4]

 

[RedCOMET]

It's like that in every other country as well. Try to get a job in another country, especially without any proof of who you are and if you're a citizen or not. Just being in the country (almost any country) without some documentation is a crime and in other countries the penalties are MUCH stiffer than ours.

Why is that little detail absent from most of the media reports about the law? I would venture to guess that the US Laws and particularly the AZ is are not the harshest things in the world.