Despite threatening to mount legal challenges to the AZ bill Holder has not read it

[Red Dawn]

No, the police needs a different reason first. For example, if you were jaywalking, the police can stop you and ask for the ID. If you were just following the law, then the police can't do a single thing to you.

And if you aren't carrying one they should check out your immigration status?

 

[classy]

that's simply not true. once again, and for the last time, the law was modified to require that the suspect must be stopped, detained, or arrested for a different violation or criminal act before their immigration status can be questioned.

Well thats not what the language in the bill says

Page 1

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.


No where does it say the person has to be charged or found guilty of a crime. No where does it specify types of crimes or severity of a crime. All it says is that a police officer, without a warrant to boot, can check to see if a person is illegal just under suspicion of commiting a crime. If a guy is jaywalking or getting a parking, a police officer under this bill can hold that person to see if they are in the country legally. And the without a warrant bit is total bs, you are going to have cops raiding homes under some bs excuse and running immigration checks. I am all for dealing with immigration, but giving cops license to do drive bys is a joke.

 

[blackangst1]

Well thats not what the language in the bill says

Page 1

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.


No where does it say the person has to be charged or found guilty of a crime. No where does it specify types of crimes or severity of a crime. All it says is that a police officer, without a warrant to boot, can check to see if a person is illegal just under suspicion of commiting a crime. If a guy is jaywalking or getting a parking, a police officer under this bill can hold that person to see if they are in the country legally. And the without a warrant bit is total bs, you are going to have cops raiding homes under some bs excuse and running immigration checks. I am all for dealing with immigration, but giving cops license to do drive bys is a joke.

You have no idea what probable cause is, do you.

And yes, that was a statement, not a question.

edit: And you conveniently left out this, also from the first page:

27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

See where it says "is convicted of a violation" of blah blah blah? Once again, you need to stop with the "drive by" comments. You are flat out wrong.

 

[classy]

You have no idea what probable cause is, do you.

And yes, that was a statement, not a question.

edit: And you conveniently left out this, also from the first page:

27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

See where it says "is convicted of a violation" of blah blah blah? Once again, you need to stop with the "drive by" comments. You are flat out wrong.

The language you quote has nothing to do with "checking the status of person to see if they are illegal." That language spells out what to do if a person is illegal, the status of the person is already known. When you get to the section I have quoted it does not explicitly reference the previous language here. And the language I quote contradicts the language you quote because once a person has been determined to be here illegally they are automatically subject to deportation, regardless if any crime has been committed.

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO there are serious reasons to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona law before it takes effect on July 29, 2010. And I am also fairly confident the United States Justice Department will file such lawsuit.

But if the Justice Deparpment does file such a lawsuit, they will be at least the fourth entity to do so, as three other entities HAVE ALREADY filed.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0429/Legal-challenges-to-Arizona-immigration-law-multiply

So if anyone thinks that these constitutional question will not be tested in court, that premise is already wrong.

And there may be room for the courts to find a middle ground by narrowing the definitions of the probable causes reasons to allow a police officer to ask for immigration status papers or not in the first place.

But as this new Arizona law has already passe from the realm of politics and political debate, and is now already in the hands of courts, political debate is now longer a valid currency, and since an injunction against the AZ law's enforcement is also likely, so I do not see this law taking effect anytime soon, and if it dies in the courts instead, this thread will be all a tempest in a tea pot.

But as an update, it now looks like Sarah Palin will throw herself into the emotional debate on the side of Arizona.

 

[blackangst1]

The language you quote has nothing to do with "checking the status of person to see if they are illegal." That language spells out what to do if a person is illegal, the status of the person is already known. When you get to the section I have quoted it does not explicitly reference the previous language here. And the language I quote contradicts the language you quote because once a person has been determined to be here illegally they are automatically subject to deportation, regardless if any crime has been committed.

The section you quoted

IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE

states probable cause must exist. Why do you have a problem with this? Do you have a problem with probable cause itself, or only in regards to this law? Its a pretty common legal standard.

Also, even prior to this bill, being in the country illegally was already a crime. A legal alien not carrying documentaion was already a crime. So, thsoe in and of themselves, are crimes.

 

[Lemon law]

The possible weakness of the Blackaigst1 statement of, "IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE", lies in what is in the mind of the officer, and if they are offended b y someone who looks Hispanic, they can always make up some possible offense
to justify busting them. I could a sworn I saw you spit on the sidewalk or give me the finger, anything at all would do.

 

[blackangst1]

The possible weakness of the Blackaigst1 statement of, "IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE", lies in what is in the mind of the officer, and if they are offended b y someone who looks Hispanic, they can always make up some possible offense
to justify busting them. I could a sworn I saw you spit on the sidewalk or give me the finger, anything at all would do.

And I have commented on this in the other threads. the fact is, AZ LEO, in its thousands of lawsuits, has not been shown to be racially biased. I also commented that there is always a possbility of bias in ANY case when probable cause is used; however, when bias is discovered, the courts can handle it. Just because probable cause has potential to be abused doesnt mean we should throw it out. If we throw it out for immigration enforcement, logically we must throw it out for everything as a standard. Murder cases, for example. If we throw out reasonable suspicion, save a video of a perp commiting it, we wouldnt be able to investigate. Afterall, eyewitnesses arent perfect, could be biased, and there IS a chance, however small, that DNA is wrong. See the silliness?

 

[Hacp]

And if you aren't carrying one they should check out your immigration status?

Immigrants who are here legally are already required to have their immigration documents with them at all times by Federal law.

 

[Xellos2099]

What's the problem with carrying ID? Come on, if you look young want want to watch rate r movie you are require an ID, when you buy videogames that is rated M they ask for ID. What seems to be the outrage about it? To be frank, I do not know what's the problem with racial profiling either as it prove accurate quite often.

1. Police stopped someone for speeding
2. Police ask for driver license, the person have no ID or driver license
3. The person has an adult, look Hispanic and don't really speak english, only spanish

In this case, there is a high chance that he is illegal immigrant beyond any reasonable doubt, should one check for his status?

 

[Kappo]

The possible weakness of the Blackaigst1 statement of, "IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE", lies in what is in the mind of the officer, and if they are offended b y someone who looks Hispanic, they can always make up some possible offense
to justify busting them. I could a sworn I saw you spit on the sidewalk or give me the finger, anything at all would do.

What stops a cop from arresting someone (not just hispanics) for a made up crime without the law?

What's the problem with carrying ID? Come on, if you look young want want to watch rate r movie you are require an ID, when you buy videogames that is rated M they ask for ID. What seems to be the outrage about it? To be frank, I do not know what's the problem with racial profiling either as it prove accurate quite often.

1. Police stopped someone for speeding
2. Police ask for driver license, the person have no ID or driver license
3. The person has an adult, look Hispanic and don't really speak english, only spanish

In this case, there is a high chance that he is illegal immigrant beyond any reasonable doubt, should one check for his status?

Not if they can deport this administration's voters.

 

[bob4432]

What stops a cop from arresting someone (not just hispanics) for a made up crime without the law?



Not if they can deport this administration's voters.

so you are ok for illegals voting? i thought the standards were higher for voting...

 

[Kappo]

so you are ok for illegals voting? i thought the standards were higher for voting...

Nope, but an in-law family member from Canada has voted every election he has been here. He was naturalized (although legal the entire time) last year. Was one of the reasons I was a very strong supporter of requiring ID at the voting booth

 

[werepossum]

I like how there was no option for 'independently find the law unconstitutional and challenge it in court'. Glad to see how the quality of thought going into posts on here is still top notch. Don't ever change guys... don't you ever change!

It was smart of Arizona to alter the text of the original law after they realized that it was certainly going in the unconstitutional toilet in their original wording, but even so it's in deep constitutional trouble on 4th amendment reasonable suspicion grounds, interference with the supremacy clause, etc.

Not only that, but the law has another provision that is blindingly stupid. It provides a method for citizens to sue the government if they believe that immigration laws are not being sufficiently enforced and provides monetary reimbursement for people who do so and win. This opens up law enforcement to a massive amount of legal liability in relation to an issue that in reality must be balanced against other law enforcement priorities due to the obvious constraints of a budget that is not unlimited. Regardless of your feelings on illegal immigration, that's just bad policy.

If you hold a press conference about how a law is unconstitutional when you admit you've not read it nor even had your staff read it, nobody is ever going to buy that you have independently found the law unconstitutional.

The option for citizens to sue law enforcement for not enforcing it is the only thing that MIGHT make liberal and Democrat (but I repeat myself) sheriffs and chiefs enforce it.

 

[Hammerman]

Some current immigration laws as of 2010 IN Mexico.


1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

 

[blackangst1]

Some current immigration laws as of 2010 IN Mexico.


1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Its only fair we return the favor to its citizens.

In the name of equality.

 

[Red Dawn]

Think he's read it yet?

 

[MotF Bane]

Some current immigration laws as of 2010 IN Mexico.


1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

:awe:

 

[MotF Bane]

Think he's read it yet?

Nope.

 

[Fingolfin269]

This caller supports dropping the borders completely and letting everyone into the USA. She also supports limited people's incomes in the USA.

Oh, and she's on welfare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg0pDPK56Ys

That was so disturbing that I can't make up my mind if it was a set up or not.

 

[spacejamz]

Nope.

maybe someone on his staff might have been now...does that count???

 

[nonlnear]

That was so disturbing that I can't make up my mind if it was a set up or not.

It is entirely possible that this was not set up by the show but that the caller was a fake.

 

[werepossum]

Some current immigration laws as of 2010 IN Mexico.


1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Sounds good, let's adopt it except for #8 - all citizens must be equal, no matter how long they have been citizens. For that matter I wouldn't support restricting the rights of legal aliens either, except for voting.

 

[spacejamz]

It is entirely possible that this was not set up by the show but that the caller was a fake.

I wonder what that caller's User name is here at ATOT...

 

[Budmantom]

Think he's read it yet?

This administration doesn't need to read anything or know any facts to make wrong decisions, it's just second nature, it can't be taught or explained.