Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Why does that matter? The case shows that it is clearly possible to have reasonable basis for detaining immigrants without resorting to racial profiling.

No, it doesn't.

Profiling is not exclusionary.

I would imagine their would be more Mexicans detained because

1.) There are more mexicans in the US than germans.
2.) There are far more mexicans without US ID or valid passport/visa for obvious reasons.

Duh.

So if there are more illegal Mexicans out than Germans, what are your chances for getting a "hit" by stopping every white person you see in AZ and asking for ID as compared to doing the same for Mexican/Hispanic individuals?

Any LOGICAL person would see that profiling would work to get the most results from this program w/o pissing off too many of the electorate.

And that is the problem. The law was poorly envisioned when the only way to effectively utilize it would involve profiling based on race.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
No, it doesn't.

Profiling is not exclusionary.



Duh.

So if there are more illegal Mexicans out than Germans, what are your chances for getting a "hit" by stopping every white person you see in AZ and asking for ID as compared to doing the same for Mexican/Hispanic individuals?

Any LOGICAL person would see that profiling would work to get the most results from this program w/o pissing off too many of the electorate.

And that is the problem. The law was poorly envisioned when the only way to effectively utilize it would involve profiling based on race.

Except you are not allowed to stop every person, or every hispanic person.

Profiling is specifically against the law. And you have zero evidence of it happening.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
You are allowed to stop every person you "suspect".

Like I said: Disorderly Conduct and Loitering are two that are used quite often and hard to refute.

You really like circles, don't you?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
You are allowed to stop every person you "suspect".

Like I said: Disorderly Conduct and Loitering are two that are used quite often and hard to refute.

You really like circles, don't you?

And where is your evidence of this actually happening?
 

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
You are allowed to stop every person you "suspect".

Like I said: Disorderly Conduct and Loitering are two that are used quite often and hard to refute.

You really like circles, don't you?

here is the arizona law in question.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/11/01051.htm&Title=11&DocType=ARS

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest 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 in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and 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. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. 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 let's break this law down to more normal languge.

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by police in the enforcement of any other law, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien, then an attempt shall be made to determine the immigration status. A person is not a illegal alien if they present ID.

So the police has to first stop you for another law, then there has reasonable suspicion of being an illegal, then the police must try to determine immigration status. So no the police can stop you on just the suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02905.htm
Guide on not to loiter in arizona. Don't be a positute, beg, or gamble in public and leave from schools/bus stops/train stations/airports, if requested to leave.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02904.htm
Guide on not to commit disorderly conduct in arizona. Don't get in a fight, be loud or offensive, or shot a gun in public. Also follow police instructions in an emergency sititution.

I don't see how your average person commits loitering or disorderly conduct very regularly by arizona standards.

Also let's assume a cop does exactly what you say. In section K, if the cop acted in bad faith then the cop can be held responsible for the cost of his actions. The lawsuits or the threat of lawsuit will quickly kill any bad behavior.

if you're wonder how this law will be enforced without racial profiling, you may wish to watch this training video.
http://www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
You keep dancing around the point:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by police in the enforcement of any other law, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien

It is MUCH easier to find SOMETHING wrong after you have pulled someone over for no reason than to spot it while they are moving. Their race, however, is easy.

As for profiling, let me give you a good example, here in NYC AAMOF. Hotbed of racial inequality.

I was walking down the street today, just like any other day. Since the sidewalk was crowded, I was walking on the edge of the street. Behind me was a bunch of black kids with a few doing the same.

I heard the "whoop" of a short pulse police siren. Twice. The cop pulls aside the kids, 10 feet behind me, and asks THEM why they are walking in the street.

Not the White Guy. The Black kids. In NYC. In Midtown.

Now you are telling me that by instructing the cops NOT to profile, they won't profile and fill in the blanks after the fact to make their arrest valid?


What WORLD are you living in?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,279
10,192
136
You are allowed to stop every person you "suspect".

Like I said: Disorderly Conduct and Loitering are two that are used quite often and hard to refute.

You really like circles, don't you?

That's cyber.. oops 256's MO.
 

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
You keep dancing around the point:



It is MUCH easier to find SOMETHING wrong after you have pulled someone over for no reason than to spot it while they are moving. Their race, however, is easy.

As for profiling, let me give you a good example, here in NYC AAMOF. Hotbed of racial inequality.

I was walking down the street today, just like any other day. Since the sidewalk was crowded, I was walking on the edge of the street. Behind me was a bunch of black kids with a few doing the same.

I heard the "whoop" of a short pulse police siren. Twice. The cop pulls aside the kids, 10 feet behind me, and asks THEM why they are walking in the street.

Not the White Guy. The Black kids. In NYC. In Midtown.

Now you are telling me that by instructing the cops NOT to profile, they won't profile and fill in the blanks after the fact to make their arrest valid?


What WORLD are you living in?

How many times have you been stopped by police for no reason? and then the police "found" a reason?

It's also easier for cops to catch criminals using illegal searches, but the police try to avoid illegal searches because criminal will walk later. In the case of SB1070, if cops start pulling over people for no reason then racial profiling then individual cop will pay for it out of their pocket because they will have acted in bad faith.(section K).

Stoping a few(more than one) people from walking in the street has more impact on safety than stoping one person, so race had nothing to do with your situtation.

And yes I expect the police to not racially profile if instructed to not racially profile.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
You keep dancing around the point:



It is MUCH easier to find SOMETHING wrong after you have pulled someone over for no reason than to spot it while they are moving. Their race, however, is easy.

As for profiling, let me give you a good example, here in NYC AAMOF. Hotbed of racial inequality.

I was walking down the street today, just like any other day. Since the sidewalk was crowded, I was walking on the edge of the street. Behind me was a bunch of black kids with a few doing the same.

I heard the "whoop" of a short pulse police siren. Twice. The cop pulls aside the kids, 10 feet behind me, and asks THEM why they are walking in the street.

Not the White Guy. The Black kids. In NYC. In Midtown.

Now you are telling me that by instructing the cops NOT to profile, they won't profile and fill in the blanks after the fact to make their arrest valid?


What WORLD are you living in?

So you are suggesting that cops in Arizona will have nothing better to do then go around harassing random hispanic people?

I mean its not like cops have anything else to do right?
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
How many times have you been stopped by police for no reason? and then the police "found" a reason?

Once, when I called the cops after I was beaten and came to on the side of the road.

I called THEM, and they took ME in for "disorderly conduct" because I did not get up from the bench with a sprained ankle the paramedic was putting ice on.


Care to continue along that line bubbie?

It's also easier for cops to catch criminals using illegal searches, but the police try to avoid illegal searches because criminal will walk later. In the case of SB1070, if cops start pulling over people for no reason then racial profiling then individual cop will pay for it out of their pocket because they will have acted in bad faith.(section K).

The hard part is PROVING it. Add that to the fact that most illegals do not have LAWYERS.

Stoping a few(more than one) people from walking in the street has more impact on safety than stoping one person, so race had nothing to do with your situtation.

That has nothing to do with my position or statements.

And yes I expect the police to not racially profile if instructed to not racially profile.

Some don't. Most do.


It's human to do so.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
So you are suggesting that cops in Arizona will have nothing better to do then go around harassing random hispanic people?

No.

I mean its not like cops have anything else to do right?

Straw man.

I am sure the cops are physically capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

Also, it is not me that is ringing the bell in the town square crying that all hell has broken loose because of them and that new, stricter laws that infringe on our base constitutional rights need to be enacted to combat it.

I am saying 3 things.

1. This will be abused. It is human nature, logical, and too efficient to ignore.
2. It WILL WORK to reduce the immigrant (illegal) population in AZ.
3. It will, and has, infringed on the rights of American citizens and is a dangerous step towards selective totalitarianism.

The quickest, easiest, and most effective way to stop crime is to kill all criminals.

Does that mean we use it?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The hard part is PROVING it. Add that to the fact that most illegals do not have LAWYERS.

Why should illegals have lawyers? Illegal immigrants cannot have their constitutional rights violated, because they have none. If you are in the country illegally you should be removed as quickly as possible.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
That's cyber.. oops 256's MO.

I know it is. I have 2 of his "friends" on ignore already because there is not much gotten from their "contributions".

I am hoping one of these "friends" will be the logical spokesperson for the group while the others continue to post illogical associations, flame bait, phish phood, and deliberate ignorant self contradictory verbal diarrhea.

It is one thing to disagree, it is another to take someone who is willing to see the merits and shortcomings of a particular issue and discuss ALL of them w/o taking a pre-manufactured state of opinion on as their own to the exclusion of ANYTHING to the contrary.

Or is that a requirement for posting on P&N? :confused:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
1. This will be abused. It is human nature, logical, and too efficient to ignore.
2. It WILL WORK to reduce the immigrant (illegal) population in AZ.
3. It will, and has, infringed on the rights of American citizens and is a dangerous step towards selective totalitarianism.

The quickest, easiest, and most effective way to stop crime is to kill all criminals.

Does that mean we use it?

Any law can be abused. Why do you think this law is more likely to be abused? Especially when this law has specific safeguards to reduce abuse.

If it has infringed on American's constitutional rights then why are these Americans not suing for having their rights violated? Seems to me they should be able to easily find many liberal groups who would love to help them sue.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Why should illegals have lawyers? Illegal immigrants cannot have their constitutional rights violated, because they have none. If you are in the country illegally you should be removed as quickly as possible.

You asked a question, I answered. Even an illegal can have things turned around. I would have to look at the specifics (they would probably still be deported) but you CANNOT STOP A PERSON ON THE STREET FOR NO REASON. There is, more likely than not, a penalty or fine applied to any officer proven of doing just that.

But, as I said, if the illegals do not have a lawyer (which 99% do not), then proving it is almost impossible. And if you can't prove it, it does not ever happen, right?

Just ask NYC cops about their "declining" crime rates. (Just do not ask them about them not filing crime reports on many minor robberies and other crimes).
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Any law can be abused. Why do you think this law is more likely to be abused? Especially when this law has specific safeguards to reduce abuse.

And I have already stated on how easy it would be to circumvent these "safeguards".

If it has infringed on American's constitutional rights then why are these Americans not suing for having their rights violated? Seems to me they should be able to easily find many liberal groups who would love to help them sue.

Ah, "liberal" groups. Not just groups, they have to be "liberal", because, oxymoronically, "conservatives" would NEVER want to protect the rights and freedoms this country was founded on, now would they?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
And I have already stated on how easy it would be to circumvent these "safeguards".



Ah, "liberal" groups. Not just groups, they have to be "liberal", because, oxymoronically, "conservatives" would NEVER want to protect the rights and freedoms this country was founded on, now would they?

They would be liberal. Conservative groups support the law.

Now, lets try an example. Let us say a cop pulls someone over for speeding. This individual has no driver's license on them, and after providing their name/address cannot be found in the Computer database. Should it be legal to detained them until their identity is ascertained, and if they are found to be illegal handed over to the federal authorities for deportation?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Once, when I called the cops after I was beaten and came to on the side of the road.

I called THEM, and they took ME in for "disorderly conduct" because I did not get up from the bench with a sprained ankle the paramedic was putting ice on.

Sure...that is why they did it. You obviously took them to court over it and won, since you were not guilty, right?


If we do not allow laws which have the ability to be abused by the police, we would have to remove a great swath of our laws. Not crossing the double yellow line while driving is a prime example. According to your faulty logic, that law should not be allowed because the police can abuse it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
They would be liberal. Conservative groups support the law.

Now, lets try an example. Let us say a cop pulls someone over for speeding. This individual has no driver's license on them, and after providing their name/address cannot be found in the Computer database. Should it be legal to detained them until their identity is ascertained, and if they are found to be illegal handed over to the federal authorities for deportation?

People are already held until their identities can be positively determined by the police. This is already done all across the US. The new piece is that if they are found to be illegals, they are turned over for deportation.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
They would be liberal. Conservative groups support the law.

That is a misnomer. Liberal groups also support the law. the classic definition of each are:

A willingness to explore new things.

A desire to keep things the same.

that's it. We have perverted their root meaning to something different. "Conservatives" are really selective retro-activists, and "liberals" are just about anything else that isn't. (Or, anyone who does not agree with a self-professed "conservative")

Now, lets try an example.

No, because your examples rarely have any bearing on the actual subject.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
-----snipped-----
I am saying 3 things.

1. This will be abused. It is human nature, logical, and too efficient to ignore.
----------snipped-----------

Yes we know youre saying that. But what you havent been able to to do is to point out what parts of SB1070 will make it easier than it is now to abuse it, when it has been pointed out to you that SB1070 has more safeguards against abuse than current law does.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I know it is. I have 2 of his "friends" on ignore already because there is not much gotten from their "contributions".

Ignore - the feature used by those whose views are so fragile they cannot possibly withstand contact with an opposing view.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Let us see everyone's stance on profiling:

You have information saying someone on a bus has a bomb. It is set to go off in 30 seconds, but is easily defused. The bus has 15 people above the age of 60, 15 people between 30 and 60, and 15 people below the age of 30.

Due to the time constraint, it is impossible to search more than 15 people and still successfully defuse the bomb, saving the life of all 45 people. Who do you search and why? You do not have to search any one group, you can randomly pick a few from each, or you can search an entire group, your call.