Rhode Island already has the Arizona Immigration law

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
V

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
No, Rhode Island merely verifies immigration status of drivers, who are required to carry a license while driving. Arizona wants to force people to prove their immigration status during any Terry stop, effectively requiring everyone to carry papers at all times.

The author's understanding of Muehler is similarly faulty. The Supreme Court said that officers may ask a person about immigration status, not compel an answer; the same sentence mentions search requests, which are similarly voluntary. Effectively, the decision says that the police can ask whatever they want, and if you're dumb enough to cooperate you can't claim a civil rights violation.

A somewhat similar recent case is Stufflebeam v. Harris, in which the apellate court ruled that asking the plaintiff for identification was perfectly Constitutional, but arresting him when he refused to provide it was illegal.
 
Freshgeardude

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
Venix said:
No, Rhode Island merely verifies immigration status of drivers, who are required to carry a license while driving. Arizona wants to force people to prove their immigration status during any Terry stop, effectively requiring everyone to carry papers at all times.
Click to expand...


please explain the difference?

when would an officer check if someone has a drivers license in Rhode island? when they stop them.

Not sure what state you live in, but from what i know whenever a cop stops you while driving you have to show license and registration, and more recently proof of insurance.

Arizona law says that officers can only ask AFTER a previous infraction of the law is made. In essence, if you dont break any other laws (except for being illegal), you would technically be safe.


Venix said:
A somewhat similar recent case is Stufflebeam v. Harris, in which the apellate court ruled that asking the plaintiff for identification was perfectly Constitutional, but arresting him when he refused to provide it was illegal.
Click to expand...

This is also different from someone being an illegal immigrant.
 
Last edited:
V

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Freshgeardude said:
please explain the difference?

when would an officer check if someone has a drivers license in Rhode island? when they stop them.

Not sure what state you live in, but from what i know whenever a cop stops you while driving you have to show license and registration, and more recently proof of insurance.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what was confusing about my original statment. I specifically said "Terry stop," not "traffic stop."

To reiterate: Rhode Island does not require people who are walking on the street or even in their own homes to carry and present papers when they're the target of a police investigation. Arizona does.

Arizona law says that officers can only ask AFTER a previous infraction of the law is made.
Click to expand...

I already said this in my first post: "Arizona wants to force people to prove their immigration status during any Terry stop." The "during a Terry stop" requirement obviously necessitates suspicion of some other infraction.

In essence, if you dont break any other laws (except for being illegal), you would technically be safe.
Click to expand...

Innocent people are routinely stopped by the police. There is no way to "technically be safe" unless you can magically prevent the police from ever suspecting you of an infraction.

In any case, I don't give a shit about illegals. I care about American citizens who will be forced to prove their citizenship. Aside from the "carry your papers" requirement, most of Arizona's immigration reform is an excellent idea.

This is also different from someone being an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not sure what was so difficult to understand about my original statement. The OP's article confuses asking about immigration status with requiring the suspect to answer. Stufflebeam is an example of how it can be perfectly legal to ask a question, but illegal to compel an answer.
 
Last edited:
Freshgeardude

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
Venix said:
I'm not sure what was confusing about my original statment. I specifically said "Terry stop," not "traffic stop."

To reiterate: Rhode Island does not require people who are walking on the street or even in their own homes to carry and present papers when they're the target of a police investigation. Arizona does.



I already said this in my first post: "Arizona wants to force people to prove their immigration status during any Terry stop." The "during a Terry stop" requirement obviously necessitates suspicion of some other infraction.



Innocent people are routinely stopped by the police. There is no way to "technically be safe" unless you can magically prevent the police from ever suspecting you of an infraction.

In any case, I don't give a shit about illegals. I care about American citizens who will be forced to prove their citizenship. Aside from the "carry your papers" requirement, most of Arizona's immigration reform is an excellent idea.



Again, I'm not sure what was so difficult to understand about my original statement. The OP's article confuses asking about immigration status with requiring the suspect to answer. Stufflebeam is an example of how it can be perfectly legal to ask a question, but illegal to compel an answer.
Click to expand...



Arizona law specifically makes it illegal for police to racially profile, so terry stops wont happen, or at least legally, for this issue.

The law states that immigration status can only be asked AFTER a person has broken another law.


In traffic stops, cops can read a person however they want, This is how they catch people drunk, or have illegal shit in their car for example.

That way they can ask for immigration status


Furthermore, drivers licenses prove legal immigration status in arizona.

http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

read that

if they dont have a license, it will be safe for them to assume that the person is illegal

Again, I'm not sure what was so difficult to understand about my original statement. The OP's article confuses asking about immigration status with requiring the suspect to answer. Stufflebeam is an example of how it can be perfectly legal to ask a question, but illegal to compel an answer.
Click to expand...

So if someone is legal, what stops them from proving it? a few minutes and they would be on their way. On the other hand, who gives a shit if an illegal starves on the side of the highway for 20 hours and gets thrown in jail? if they cant prove immigration status, then they are most likely illegal.

Lastly, i am pretty sure it wouldnt be hard for those with legal immigration status to be in a database, similarly to driver licenses, so the officer could always check his computer if the person isnt carrying his ID.
 
Last edited:
V

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Freshgeardude said:
Arizona law specifically makes it illegal for police to racially profile, so terry stops wont happen, or at least legally, for this issue.

The law states that immigration status can only be asked AFTER a person has broken another law.
Click to expand...

Ugh, make an effort to read and comprehend before posting. I never said that a person can be stopped on suspicion of being illegal.

In my first post I specifically said that immigration status can only be challenged if the person is already being detained. In my second, I further clarified that the detention must be for some non-immigration related offense. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer for you.

In traffic stops, cops can read a person however they want, This is how they catch people drunk, or have illegal shit in their car for example.

That way they can ask for immigration status


Furthermore, drivers licenses prove legal immigration status in arizona.

http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

read that

if they dont have a license, it will be safe for them to assume that the person is illegal
Click to expand...

For the third time, I am not talking about traffic stops.

If a person is driving without a license, verifying his identity or even simply arresting him is perfectly acceptable.

So if someone is legal, what stops them from proving it? a few minutes and they would be on their way. On the other hand, who gives a shit if an illegal starves on the side of the highway for 20 hours and gets thrown in jail? if they cant prove immigration status, then they are most likely illegal.

Lastly, i am pretty sure it wouldnt be hard for those with legal immigration status to be in a database, similarly to driver licenses, so the officer could always check his computer if the person isnt carrying his ID.
Click to expand...

Freedom-loving Americans abhor the idea of having to prove their innocence. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
waggy said:
If it was on the boarder then maybe people would care.
Click to expand...

For reference, theres a shitload of illegals from mexico in Minnesota. Many years ago a newspaper even traced out their preferred path across the country and posted a picture of it.
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
What the fuck is a "terry stop"??? You can't just make up words and expect people to understand you, Venix.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Throckmorton said:
What the fuck is a "terry stop"??? You can't just make up words and expect people to understand you, Venix.
Click to expand...

he is not.

wiki link

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.
 
Fenixgoon

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,595
13,294
136
Venix said:
No, Rhode Island merely verifies immigration status of drivers, who are required to carry a license while driving. Arizona wants to force people to prove their immigration status during any Terry stop, effectively requiring everyone to carry papers at all times.

The author's understanding of Muehler is similarly faulty. The Supreme Court said that officers may ask a person about immigration status, not compel an answer; the same sentence mentions search requests, which are similarly voluntary. Effectively, the decision says that the police can ask whatever they want, and if you're dumb enough to cooperate you can't claim a civil rights violation.

A somewhat similar recent case is Stufflebeam v. Harris, in which the apellate court ruled that asking the plaintiff for identification was perfectly Constitutional, but arresting him when he refused to provide it was illegal.
Click to expand...

federal law requires that aliens do carry their papers with them at all times... fancy that.
 
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
her209 said:
Oh look... another useless post by our resident troll Tristicus.

Now be a good little boy and find me the relevant section.
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/statutes/
Click to expand...


You can use your Google powers, or read 287(g):

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/memo...anding/r_287grhodeislandstatepolice101509.pdf

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (1996), as amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, authorizes the Secretary of DHS, acting through the Assistant Secretary of ICE, to enter into written agreements with a State or any political subdivision of a State so that qualified personnel can perform certain​

functions of an immigration officer. This MOA constitutes such a written agreement.
Click to expand...

This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is between the US Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Rhode Island State Police, (RISP), pursuant to which selected RISP personnel are authorized to perform immigration enforcement duties in specific situations under Federal authority. As such, the training, supervision, and performance of participating RISP personnel pursuant to the MOA, as well as the protections for U.S. citizens' and aliens' civil and constitutional rights, are to be monitored. Part of that monitoring will be accomplished through these complaint reporting and resolution procedures, which the parties to the MOA have agreed to follow.​
Click to expand...

And then, for shits and giggles, use your Google skills to read many stories on how RI is doing exactly what AZ is trying to do.
 
Last edited:
fantolay

fantolay

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2009
1,061
0
0
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
fantolay said:
her209 you just got your ass handed to you. I also can't believe you are browsing the P&N forum but didn't hear either online, on the radio, or in the news, that RI is already doing it.
Click to expand...

The defense will be RI has the agreement with ICE, AZ doesnt.
 
Tristicus

Tristicus

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2008
8,107
5
61
www.wallpapereuphoria.com
her209 said:
Oh look... another useless post by our resident troll Tristicus.

Now be a good little boy and find me the relevant section.
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/statutes/
Click to expand...

blackangst1 said:
You can use your Google powers, or read 287(g):

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/memo...anding/r_287grhodeislandstatepolice101509.pdf





And then, for shits and giggles, use your Google skills to read many stories on how RI is doing exactly what AZ is trying to do.
Click to expand...

How convenient, I don't even have to explain it myself. Thanks blackangst!
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
fantolay said:
her209 you just got your ass handed to you. I also can't believe you are browsing the P&N forum but didn't hear either online, on the radio, or in the news, that RI is already doing it.
Click to expand...
LOL... do you even know why AZ is being sued? Its because its seizing authority reserved for the Federal government via SB1070. In Rhode Island's case, its harder for the federal government to sue and prove that they enforcing immigration policy outside of what they are legally permitted to do. Now if Rhode Island was dumb enough to pass their own SB1070, that gives the feds a clear target and an easier case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom