Arizona's immigration law - genius

[Stratocaster]

@Rumor_Watkins

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.

No, you’re wrong. My point was in reaction to someone who seemed dismissive of a law that applied to him. I don’t get to dismiss laws because I’m a citizen, but neither does someone “visiting” (replace with whatever verb you’d prefer).

[Rumor_Watkins]

[quote=“Stratocaster, post:200, topic:540248”]

Are you under the impression that reasonable suspicion, if created by the suspect’s words, is somehow unconstitutional or inferior or something else?

No, I don’t think it’s unconstitutional. What I do think is that, words don’t exist in a vacuum - biases and prejudices affect the analysis, and I’m of the opinion that it would, in this situation, and it would in a way to make it unconstitutional.

I mean, are you really of the opinion that the same quantum of reasonable suspicion (and i’m talking about the bad type and the good) exists if some corn-fed white as a sheet guy and his brother in small town Iowa have the exact same interaction, word-for-word, as some thick-accented brown dude 150 miles from Juarez?

Lets get back to actual crime examples. Let’s not ignore the fact that reasonable suspicion isn’t sufficient to give a cop authority to search a suspect any more comprehensively than a weapons frisk. It’s an incredibly important distinction to me that RS only gives a cop a finite amount of time in which to continue investigation. But, no matter. Do you think that saying “shut up. he can search” really gives rise to reasonable suspicion for a cop to maintain the stop longer to continue investigation. If so, what happens then? Let’s imagine that frick and frack actually keep their mouths shut from there on. They’re gonna go free.

[JUlrey]

@Giles

What queue? For most of the illegal immigrants, there’s no queue that they could join. For some, the queue may be many years long.

Cite? In other words, can you find a decent estimate of how much these people cost in government expenditure, versus how much they pay in taxes? And, yes, they do pay taxes – income tax, social security tax, sales tax, etc.

Actually can we go a step further and compare those figures to how many legal US citizens are also “bleeding the system dry”? Because I would venture a guess that illegal immigrants are contributing but a small drop in the bucket in comparison. Or is the thinking that Americans are either more deserving or at least more honest, and wouldn’t be using these resources unless they absolutely had to?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Stratocaster

No, you’re wrong. My point was in reaction to someone who seemed dismissive of a law that applied to him. I don’t get to dismiss laws because I’m a citizen, but neither does someone “visiting” (replace with whatever verb you’d prefer).

so we all must scrupulously adhere to each and every law, lest we suffer your wrath? :rolleyes:

you’ll pardon me if i wait with bated breath the next time I make a post about ignoring the law that says i can’t go into a park after sundown.

[Stratocaster]

@Rumor_Watkins

I mean, are you really of the opinion that the same quantum of reasonable suspicion (and i’m talking about the bad type and the good) exists if some corn-fed white as a sheet guy and his brother in small town Iowa have the exact same interaction, word-for-word, as some thick-accented brown dude 150 miles from Juarez?

I might need you to reconstruct this sentence. But if I understand it, no, I’m under no impression that police will apply this or any other law without the effect of human imperfection. My turn: Are you of the belief that no law is legitimate unless you can somehow prove it will be applied in exactly the same way, every single time, by every single cop, everywhere in the jurisdiction?

Lets get back to actual crime examples. Let’s not ignore the fact that reasonable suspicion isn’t sufficient to give a cop authority to search a suspect any more comprehensively than a weapons frisk. It’s an incredibly important distinction to me that RS only gives a cop a finite amount of time in which to continue investigation. But, no matter. Do you think that saying “shut up. he can search” really gives rise to reasonable suspicion for a cop to maintain the stop longer to continue investigation. If so, what happens then? Let’s imagine that frick and frack actually keep their mouths shut from there on. They’re gonna go free.

Eventually, if they’re legal. Or even if they’re no legal, if there’s no immediate way to estalbish they’re lying. But unlike many in this thread, I have full faith that this subset of criminals will, in many instances, carry on the proud tradition of digging the hole deeper and giving the cop just what he needs.

[Stratocaster]

@Rumor_Watkins

so we all must scrupulously adhere to each and every law, lest we suffer your wrath? :rolleyes:

you’ll pardon me if i wait with bated breath the next time I make a post about ignoring the law that says i can’t go into a park after sundown.

Yeah, that was real wrathful of me. The point was (and I think it was obvious) that you can’t hand wave away a law because it’s inconvenient. If I roll through a stop sign, yes, I am guilty of not scrupulously following the law. But I can guarantee you you won’t hear me say, “but I shouldn’t have to follow such a stupid law” if I happen to get a ticket. You don’t want to carry your green card, you’re rolling the dice, not me.

[JUlrey]

@kingbighair

If people are already willing to break the law to come into the US, why would a new law stop them? Are there enhanced criminal penalties in the Arizona law, or is it just faster deportation? Put me down for thinking this will not be much of a deterrent.

I’m glad I kept reading because I was about to make this same point. People are risking their life and saving money for years to pay some coyote to ferry them across the border… so what makes anyone think that adding a rap sheet to the usual deportation process is going to be a deal breaker for any significant amount of illegal immigrants?

Furthermore, I doubt we’d be seeing instances of people dying of starvation or exposure in the desert if they could pick and choose where they crossed and how they got there, so where does the idea come from that a significant number of border crossers would have the means to jet on over to California or NM just to lessen the chance of getting busted? Even if it were a given, your “domino theory” about other states looking at AZ’s success and enacting copycat laws would seemingly put you back at square one in terms of who crossed where.

So basically even if you believe that this is just a minor infringement of people’s civil rights and a “necessary step” toward righting a wrong, you still have to deal with the fact that there is little genuine reason to believe this measure will be successful in any meaningful way. With no real likelihood of success, then, doesn’t this just feel like a mean spirited way of punishing an entire races for sins we can’t realistically do much about?

[Bricker]

@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.

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?

I can’t think of any.

But that simplymeans that for reasonable suspicion to arise, it will have to come from the target’s actions. Nothing wrong with that.

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

But you’re going to be dry-humping; there is nothing impermissible about the scenarios I have laid out.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Stratocaster

I might need you to reconstruct this sentence. But if I understand it, no, I’m under no impression that police will apply this or any other law without the effect of human imperfection. My turn: Are you of the belief that no law is legitimate unless you can somehow prove it will be applied in exactly the same way, every single time, by every single cop, everywhere in the jurisdiction?

Given the subject matter that this law deals with? Absolutely, 100%. And I’ll go even further - I’m of the belief that the law doesn’t even need to be proven to be not applied fairly for it to be an impermissible law.

But unlike many in this thread, I have full faith that this subset of criminals will, in many instances, carry on the proud tradition of digging the hole deeper and giving the cop just what he needs.

And I don’t really have a problem with this part of it. What I have a problem with is giving them the shovel based on impermissible inferences about someone based on their appearance or voice.

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

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.

Yes.

As I have repeatedly answered this question, I have to admit to a certain measure of irritation to see it pop up again.

Do you remember the conversation that involved drugs? That, too, had the officer asking about drug before there was reasonable suspicion. And he is allowed to do that – he can ask about drugs without having any reasonable suspicion. And he can ask about immigration status without having reasonable suspicion. Same thing.

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?

The standard here is reasonable suspicion. It doesn’t require that evidence of a crime be proven or even probable. (That would be “probable cause.”)

[Bricker]

@Rumor_Watkins

Given the subject matter that this law deals with? Absolutely, 100%. And I’ll go even further - I’m of the belief that the law doesn’t even need to be proven to be not applied fairly for it to be an impermissible law.

Seriously? You think this law is unconstitutional on its face, for reasons other than preemption?

Or does “impermissible” mean something else?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Bricker

Seriously? You think this law is unconstitutional on its face, for reasons other than preemption?

Or does “impermissible” mean something else?

If the sup. ct. managed to not dodge the question (by using preemption as their holding ground) I would expect something like this (i.e. a broad expansion of “reasonable suspicion” from a crime-deterrent type of privacy exception to a license to arrest and investigate without probable cause to do the arresting) to be defeated by the court, especially given the way that the “reasonable suspicion” mechanism operates (in a statute like this).

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

Yes.

As I have repeatedly answered this question, I have to admit to a certain measure of irritation to see it pop up again.

Do you remember the conversation that involved drugs? That, too, had the officer asking about drug before there was reasonable suspicion. And he is allowed to do that – he can ask about drugs without having any reasonable suspicion. And he can ask about immigration status without having reasonable suspicion. Same thing.

The standard here is reasonable suspicion. It doesn’t require that evidence of a crime be proven or even probable. (That would be “probable cause.”)

Then I’m going to have say that I disagree that seeing a passport is a reasonable reason to inquire about immigration or citizenship status. In what manner do you think seeing a passport, just viewing one, gives anyone reasonable suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally? Because I’m not seeing it.

If the sight of a passport offers reasonable cause, what wouldn’t offer reasonable cause?

Is it reasonable cause if a person has Mexican currency? Is it reasonable if they have US currency on them? Is it reasonable if they have an accent? If they have brown skin? What if they just “look mexican”? What if I’m drinking a Dos Equis? Or drinking tequila? What if I’m eating a taco? What could not raise this “reasonable suspicion”?

Again, I don’t find that your scenarios hold water.

[JUlrey]

[quote=“Bricker, post:165, topic:540248”]

And yet I guarantee you that tonight, Saturday night, at least one person in almost every state in the country is answering “Yes,” to a cop’s “request” to search his car, knowing that there is contraband of some kind in it but still feeling he has to say yes because it will look too suspicious to say no.
/QUOTE]

How does this make any sense whatsoever? The criminal knows that they have contraband smuggled away, but they make the cop’s job easier by giving him permission to search their vehicle? What is the thinking supposed to be on that one, that the cop will be so impressed with the driver’s forthcoming nature that they’ll just abort the search altogether (or at least not look as hard)? That seems like a HUGE assumption and to my mind a specious argument for being in favor a law that many proponents admit may not end up doing a damn thing to curb illegal immigration in the first place.

I might - MIGHT - have bought the fact that there was no systemic racism involved in this bill at all if it wasn’t followed almost **immediately **by a bill targeting ethnic studies in AZ schools:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/in-arizona-bad-ethnic-studies.html

[Livardo]

I’m a Canadian citizen working in the states via a TN permit (people call it a visa but it really isn’t). I just re-read the letter that comes with it and it doesn’t say anything about carrying it around.

I have no official immigrant status in the United States, yet I can reside here and work. Legally. With the TN permit I can get a SSN (and file taxes), a driver’s license, a bank account, and the job I was courted for.

I’m trying to figure out how this law would apply to me. I hope that just showing my NJ DL which is stamped in red letters with “temp immgr status” will be enough. If they start asking me about my immigration status I hope they have the necessary training to recognize that there’s more than green cards to worry about.

[JUlrey]

@Saint_Cad

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.

I’m not necessarily doubting that there exist entire law enforcement branches that “look the other way”, particularly if they are largely comprised of legal immigrants or Hispanics who have a lot of foreign-born family members that may make them sympathetic to the concept of immigration in all its guises… but what I don’t understand is how passing a law that makes enforcement for something as discretionary as “reasonable cause” supposed to solve anything? If they were looking the other way before I don’t see what it is about this bill that’s going to compel them to start cracking down all of a sudden. Sure, there might be a few of the more paranoid individual LEOs thinking “oh shit, they’re on to us, better play it straight!” but this doesn’t seem like a very convincing way to create widespread reform, even assuming this is a large enough concern to pass an entire (inflammatory) bill around. So yeah, there may well be “brown-friendly” precincts scattered throughout the state of Arizona but I have to call bullshit on that being a central motive for passing the bill.

[Chen019]

JUlrey wrote:

I might - MIGHT - have bought the fact that there was no systemic racism involved in this bill at all if it wasn’t followed almost immediately by a bill targeting ethnic studies in AZ schools:

Race actually counts against them as their record shows they require affirmative action. If you’re going to have a mix of visibly different groups you need to ensure they have similar levels of academic achievement. For instance, Paris made a similar mistake with a large underclass.

They’re not just like the Irish — or the Italians or the Poles, for that matter. The large influx of Hispanic immigrants after 1965 represents a unique assimilation challenge for the United States. Many optimistic observers have assumed — incorrectly, it turns out — that Hispanic immigrants will follow the same economic trajectory European immigrants did in the early part of the last century. Many of those Europeans came to America with no money and few skills, but their status steadily improved. Their children outperformed them, and their children’s children were often indistinguishable from the “founding stock.” The speed of economic assimilation varied somewhat by ethnic group, but three generations were typically enough to turn “ethnics” into plain old Americans.
…

But that claim isn’t true. Though about three-quarters of Hispanics living in the U.S. today are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, a significant number have roots here going back many generations. We have several ways to measure their intergenerational progress, and the results leave little room for optimism about their prospects for assimilation. …
Even if economics were not a concern, the lack of Hispanic assimilation is likely to create ethnic tensions that threaten our cultural core. Human beings are a tribal species, and this makes ethnicity a natural fault line in any society. Intra-European ethnic divisions have been largely overcome through economic assimilation — Irish and Italian immigrants may have looked a bit different from natives, but by the third generation their socioeconomic profiles were similar. Hispanic Americans do not have that benefit.

Persistent ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status add to a sense of “otherness” felt by minorities outside the economic mainstream. Though it is encouraging that Hispanics often profess a belief in the American creed, an undercurrent of this “otherness” is still apparent. For example, a Pew Hispanic Center Survey in 2002 asked American-born Hispanics “which terms they would use first to describe themselves.” Less than half (46 percent) said “American,” while the majority said they primarily identified either with their ancestral country or as simply Hispanic or Latino. This feeling of otherness probably helps spur explicit ethnic organizing and lobbying. Already there is a long list of Hispanic interest groups — the National Council of La Raza, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Hispanic Lobbyists Association, to name just a handful.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=

Also, see Alexiev’s article on California.

One myth is that because America is a country of immigrants and has successfully absorbed waves of immigration in the past, it can absorb this wave. But the argument neglects two key differences between past waves and the current influx. First, the immigrant population is more than double today what it was following the most massive previous immigration wave (that of the late 19th century). Second, and much more important, as scholars from the Manhattan Institute have shown, earlier immigrants were much more likely to bring with them useful skills. Some Hispanic immigrants certainly do integrate, but most do not. Research has shown that even after 20 years in the country, most illegal aliens (the overwhelming majority of whom are Hispanic) and their children remain poor, unskilled, and culturally isolated they constitute a new permanent underclass.

National Review Online: Stop Illegals, Save CA

[Snowboarder_Bo]

from Chen019’s National Review quote:

Persistent ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status add to a sense of “otherness” felt by minorities outside the economic mainstream. Though it is encouraging that Hispanics often profess a belief in the American creed, an undercurrent of this “otherness” is still apparent. For example, a Pew Hispanic Center Survey in 2002 asked American-born Hispanics “which terms they would use first to describe themselves.” Less than half (46 percent) said “American,” while the majority said they primarily identified either with their ancestral country or as simply Hispanic or Latino. This feeling of otherness probably helps spur explicit ethnic organizing and lobbying. Already there is a long list of Hispanic interest groups — the National Council of La Raza, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Hispanic Lobbyists Association, to name just a handful.

This doesn’t mean anything, really. If I was asked to describe myself, “American” wouldn’t be the first thing to spring to mind. I mean, I’m in America; it’s very likely that everyone I’m speaking to will also be an American. I’d be much more inclined to give my height, weight, hair style, and my ethnic background (6’4", 210#, shaved bald, Italian) than to tell you I came from the country we are both standing in.

I’m not disputing everything in your quotes, Chen019, but this part is not necessarily the best illustration of the principles and situations being described.

[Stratocaster]

@Rumor_Watkins

Given the subject matter that this law deals with? Absolutely, 100%. And I’ll go even further - I’m of the belief that the law doesn’t even need to be proven to be not applied fairly for it to be an impermissible law.

Given that standard (which is ridiculous), there’s nothing to debate.

[Bricker]

@JUlrey

@Bricker

And yet I guarantee you that tonight, Saturday night, at least one person in almost every state in the country is answering “Yes,” to a cop’s “request” to search his car, knowing that there is contraband of some kind in it but still feeling he has to say yes because it will look too suspicious to say no.

How does this make any sense whatsoever? The criminal knows that they have contraband smuggled away, but they make the cop’s job easier by giving him permission to search their vehicle? What is the thinking supposed to be on that one, that the cop will be so impressed with the driver’s forthcoming nature that they’ll just abort the search altogether (or at least not look as hard)? That seems like a HUGE assumption and to my mind a specious argument for being in favor a law that many proponents admit may not end up doing a damn thing to curb illegal immigration in the first place.

Anyone involved in the criminal defense system can verify my statement. It’s not a “huge assumption” at all. It’s precisely what happens.

I can only speculate on the thinking, but from my days as a criminal defense attorney the majority of jumbled explanations I heard seemed to be, “If I say ‘no,’ he’ll know something was up.”

They did not, in other words, understand that they could say no and deny the cops any opportunity to develop more evidence; they seemed to think that if they said no, the cops could use that as suspicion to search.

This is a completely uncontroverisal statement about how consent searches are conducted across the country.