Arizona's immigration law - genius

[Bricker]

@Rumor_Watkins

reasonable suspicion of what? that he’s a citizen?

No. When two other people who know the person offer such comments, a reasonable listener can infer that the subject of the comments is not legal. This would precisely translate in the case of drugs:
COP: By the way, do you have any illegal drugs in the car? Anything you want to tell me now?

SUSPECT 1: I’m not going to answer that.

SUSPECT 2: Mano, dile que tenemos nada! (Bro, tell him we don’t have anything!)

SUSPECT 3 (to SUSPECT 2): Callate la boca! Pueden búsquedar! (Shut up! They can search!)

now can you do one when there isn’t a third party present?

So now you want a scenario where:

[ul]
[li]No other crime has been committed[/li][li]An illegal has declined to answer whether he’s a citizen[/li][li]There are no parties other than the cop and the illegal present[/li][/ul]

The only scenario I can imagine under those circumstances would have to involve some rather far-fetched plain-sight documentary evidence:

COP: By the way, are you a citizen, sir, or a legal resident?

SUSPECT: I’m not going to answer that.

COP: I see what appears to be a Mexican passport in your left front shirt pocket.

SUSPECT: It’s not mine.

That would establish reasonable suspicion.

Note that, in contrast, the following exchange would not:

COP: By the way, are you a citizen, sir, or a legal resident?

SUSPECT: I’m not going to answer that.

COP: I see what appears to be a Mexican passport in your left front shirt pocket.

SUSPECT: (remains silent)

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Bricker

No. When two other people who know the person offer such comments, a reasonable listener can infer that the subject of the comments is not legal. This would precisely translate in the case of drugs:

would it precisely translate in this case?
COP: By the way, are you a citizen, sir, or a legal resident?
SUSPECT 1: I’m not going to answer that.
SUSPECT 2: (in the heaviest midwestern nasaly accent possible) Bro, just tell him you’re a citizen)
SUSPECT 3 (to SUSPECT 2): Shut up. They can check.

reasonable suspicion?

I’m suggesting here, of course, that the factors that cause the suspicion aren’t valid “reasonable” factors. namely, the fact that they guy is of a dark complexion and speaks Spanish.

(edit: take out the last bit “they can check” if you so desire, because I think i’m misinterpreting what you meant to imply when you put that.)

[Giles]

@Bricker

COP: I see what appears to be a Mexican passport in your left front shirt pocket.

SUSPECT: It’s not mine.

Why does carrying a Mexican passport (whether it belongs to the suspect or not) created a reasonable suspicion of being illegally present in the U.S.?

What if:
COP: I see what appears to be a Canadian/Russian/Chinese passport in your left front shirt pocket.

SUSPECT: It’s not mine.
Does that create reasonable suspicion?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Giles

Why does carrying a Mexican passport (whether it belongs to the suspect or not) created a reasonable suspicion of being illegally present in the U.S.?

What if:
COP: I see what appears to be a Canadian/Russian/Chinese passport in your left front shirt pocket.

SUSPECT: It’s not mine.
Does that create reasonable suspicion?

Seems like carrying a passport openly would be more likely to give the impression that he is in the USA legally, doesn’t it?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Yes, the person could be arrested at that point, because there is probable cause to believe he’s violated the law. The law requires that a permanant resident keep his green card with him at all times.

Federal law requires it. Arizona law does not. In any case, hardly any permanent residents carry around their green cards on a daily basis, because the fucking things cost $300 to replace.

Not having a green card (INS Form I-551, if we’re being technical) on your person is proof of nothing.

[Magiver]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Federal law requires it. Arizona law does not. In any case, hardly any permanent residents carry around their green cards on a daily basis, because the fucking things cost $300 to replace.

Not having a green card (INS Form I-551, if we’re being technical) on your person is proof of nothing.

You’re complaining about a long standing law that requires people to carry their green card? How do you propose we verify people from other countries are here legally?

[Giles]

@Magiver

You’re complaining about a long standing law that requires people to carry their green card? How do you propose we verify people from other countries are here legally?

How about they produce their green card, visa, or other evidence of being in the US lawfully, when it’s important, e.g., when they are starting a new job, when they are getting a driver’s license, when they open a bank account?

(I used to carry my green card at all times, but I’ve stopped doing so for a couple of years – now I keep it in a safe place with my passport.)

[Stratocaster]

@Giles

How about they produce their green card, visa, or other evidence of being in the US lawfully, when it’s important, e.g., when they are starting a new job, when they are getting a driver’s license, when they open a bank account?

How about they comply with the laws of the country they’re visiting?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Federal law requires it. Arizona law does not. In any case, hardly any permanent residents carry around their green cards on a daily basis, because the fucking things cost $300 to replace.

Not having a green card (INS Form I-551, if we’re being technical) on your person is proof of nothing.

All we need to do is reach reasonable suspicion. That’s plenty enough proof to reach that level.

And my wife carries hers with her every time she leaves the house.

[Saint_Cad]

@jsgoddess

Do you walk around with the ability to demonstrate your citizenship? I don’t. Brown people in Arizona will have to.

That is the problem. Legal or illegal status isn’t.

Not really. Police need reasonable cause to ask about residency status. Do you complain about that standard being the determining factor for an officer to search your car or stop you for questioning if driving erratically? Hell, as a teacher I have a lower standard of evidence to meet before I am required to report a parent as a potential abuser.

Arizona requires legal residency for their driver’s license and New Mexico doesn’t so if someone is driving in Arizona with Arizona plates but shows a New Mexico license (or no license) when stopped on a traffic violation, are you implying it is racial profiling if the officer queries them about their legal residency?

What non-Arizonans don’t realize is that this law is a reaction to pro-illegal immigration police forces. Yes that’s right! There are law enforcement agencies that refuse to enforce a law that they disagree with! That is why with SB1070, enforcement is mandatory with reasonable cause. And now Napolitano has said that ICE isn’t required to follow the law either if given a known illegal immigrant by a non-Federal officer. And you wonder why laws like this get written?

[Saint_Cad]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot
3) This is a state issue, so I don’t see how a federal law could possibly over-ride Arizona’s legislation. Unless the federal government is willing to cover the costs associated with illegal immigration, as well as undermining their own immigration laws, they will have to stay out of this one.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Are their no copies of the Constitution available on your part of the internet? :dubious:

Yes and the copies I’ve seen have something called the 10th Amendment. The Constitution only gives the Federal government precedence on naturalization law and as we discussed in another thread, the right to travel clearly applies to only US Citizens thus a state can ban illegal immigrants (i.e. those not covered under Federal naturalization laws) from entry.

@Article IV

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The **Citizens **of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of **Citizens **in the several States.

The concept of a state citizen was overturned by the 14th Amendment, but notice:

@14th Amendment

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Looks like your copy of the Constitution is missing a few key pieces

[magellan01]

Saint Cad, two excellent posts. Well done.

[Bricker]

@Rumor_Watkins

would it precisely translate in this case?
COP: By the way, are you a citizen, sir, or a legal resident?
SUSPECT 1: I’m not going to answer that.
SUSPECT 2: (in the heaviest midwestern nasaly accent possible) Bro, just tell him you’re a citizen)
SUSPECT 3 (to SUSPECT 2): Shut up. They can check.

The reason I had my suspects speak in another language is to allow the inference that they thought they were communicating to each other without the officer understanding.

Andthe purpose of “They can check” was to appear as though Suspect 3 was warning the others that lying was a bad idea, because they could check and discover the truth – all leading to the inference that “citizen” was a lie, and that the truth was inculpatory in some way.

I’m suggesting here, of course, that the factors that cause the suspicion aren’t valid “reasonable” factors. namely, the fact that they guy is of a dark complexion and speaks Spanish.

(edit: take out the last bit “they can check” if you so desire, because I think i’m misinterpreting what you meant to imply when you put that.)

Interestingly, I never said a thing about dark complexion in my hypo – you added that.

And I used Spanish because that’s the only language (besides English) I could provide. If I knew French, I would have had Suspect 3 say, “Dites-lui you’ ; au sujet d’un citoyen.” (For anyone wondering, that was Altavista’s attempt.)

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Stratocaster

How about they comply with the laws of the country they’re visiting?

Immigrants aren’t visitors

@Saint_Cad

The Constitution only gives the Federal government precedence on naturalization law and as we discussed in another thread, the right to travel clearly applies to only US Citizens thus a state can ban illegal immigrants (i.e. those not covered under Federal naturalization laws) from entry.

The concept of a state citizen was overturned by the 14th Amendment, but notice:

Looks like your copy of the Constitution is missing a few key pieces

someone mixed up their definitions of a Citizen on the way to a point.
Other than that little tidbit, your reasoning is… horrendous. Legal Immigrants, both of the green card types and visa types, aren’t covered under the Federal “naturalization laws” any more than an Illegal Immigrant is. Do you believe that individual states can ban Legal Immigrants from entry?

Why not?

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Seems like carrying a passport openly would be more likely to give the impression that he is in the USA legally, doesn’t it?

Did you notice the difference between the two scenarios?

In one, he answers, “That’s not mine.”

That creates reasonable suspicion, because it does make sense to carry a passport if you’re here legally, but it doesn’t then make sense to deny that it’s yours.

In the second scenario, he remains silent, and no reasonable suspicion exists, because, as you say, there’s nothing suspicious about carrying your passport.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Bricker

And the purpose of “They can check” was to appear as though Suspect 3 was warning the others that lying was a bad idea, because they could check and discover the truth – all leading to the inference that “citizen” was a lie, and that the truth was inculpatory in some way.

yes, that was the inference that I was trying to stave off. When I originally read it, I read it as “they can check” in the sense that if he want to know, he can check for himself. Anyways, your example is still creating extraneous reasonable suspicion, i.e. the suspect has to now say something (or in this case, a 3rd party has to) to create that suspicion. we are dealing with an abstract violation of an abstract status-based law, you’re never going to have that opportunity to have RS that doesn’t come from either a) the suspect giving it himself by his words or b) some impermissible inferences about that person’s immutable and mutable characteristics.

contrast this to terry-type RS where actions, and other physical evidence can create the reasonable suspicion. the cop’s articulable facts in Terry were that (IIRC) the perp was casing the joint. what is the equivalent “act” that an illegal can “do” to give rise to RS?

Interestingly, I never said a thing about dark complexion in my hypo – you added that.

yes, I did. To cut to the chase. because i’m tired of the fingerbang, i want to fuck.

And I used Spanish because that’s the only language (besides English) I could provide. If I knew French, I would have had Suspect 3 say, “Dites-lui you’ ; au sujet d’un citoyen.” (For anyone wondering, that was Altavista’s attempt.)

ok I’ll take you at your word for that…

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

Did you notice the difference between the two scenarios?

In one, he answers, “That’s not mine.”

That creates reasonable suspicion, because it does make sense to carry a passport if you’re here legally, but it doesn’t then make sense to deny that it’s yours.

In the second scenario, he remains silent, and no reasonable suspicion exists, because, as you say, there’s nothing suspicious about carrying your passport.

But in your first (and second) scenario, the officer has already done this in the wrong order. You have him asking about citizenship or immigration status before he has cause.

@Bricker

The only scenario I can imagine under those circumstances would have to involve some rather far-fetched plain-sight documentary evidence:

COP: By the way, are you a citizen, sir, or a legal resident?
SUSPECT: I’m not going to answer that.
COP: I see what appears to be a Mexican passport in your left front shirt pocket.
SUSPECT: It’s not mine.

That would establish reasonable suspicion.

Note that, in contrast, the following exchange would not:

COP: By the way, are you a citizen, sir, or a legal resident?
SUSPECT: I’m not going to answer that.
COP: I see what appears to be a Mexican passport in your left front shirt pocket.
SUSPECT: (remains silent)

And carrying someone else’s passport, AFAIK, isn’t a crime. In fact, how exactly do you think carrying someone else’s passport raises suspicion that he could be in the country illegally, if he tells the officer it isn’t his? What crime do I commit by holding my girlfriend’s passport, if I don’t try to pass it off as my own?

Your scenarios don’t hold water, Bricker.

[Stratocaster]

@Rumor_Watkins

Immigrants aren’t visitors

Whatever. Was the point made really that murky to you?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Stratocaster

Whatever. Was the point made really that murky to you?

Yes. Do you follow each and every law of this country and the state in which you reside to a tee? Do you think you get a pass on that, and the ability to pass judgment, because you aren’t a “visitor” ?

Your only rationale i can see for your point was that “ppft. those people are only visitors in my country, graciously allowed in by my largesse. they better damn well obey my laws or they can get the eff out” Now, I would agree with this 100% for actual crimes, for ticky-tack misdemeanors (that are rationally not even intelligent laws)* like failing to have your green card on you 24/7, I would disagree.

• (that no one in the federal government even cares about; I had an occasion once to overhear an interaction at a USCIS office where an immigrant was getting re-fingerprinted or something. he didn’t have his green card with him, and the supervisor and his lower basically just told him to re-schedule the appt., bring his green card, and reminded him of his responsibility to have it on him at all times)

[Stratocaster]

@Rumor_Watkins

yes, that was the inference that I was trying to stave off. When I originally read it, I read it as “they can check” in the sense that if he want to know, he can check for himself. Anyways, your example is still creating extraneous reasonable suspicion, i.e. the suspect has to now say something (or in this case, a 3rd party has to) to create that suspicion. we are dealing with an abstract violation of an abstract status-based law, you’re never going to have that opportunity to have RS that doesn’t come from either a) the suspect giving it himself by his words or b) some impermissible inferences about that person’s immutable and mutable characteristics.

Are you under the impression that reasonable suspicion, if created by the suspect’s words, is somehow unconstitutional or inferior or something else? So what if for this law, reasonable suspicion is principally the product of the suspect incriminating himself? And Bricker provided an example in this thread, the very one you were commenting on, where the reasonable suspicion didn’t come from the suspect’s words.