# Judge blocks Arizona "show me your papers" law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345 "2010-07-28T18:58:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![G-SE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f0a364/32.png) [@G-SE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G-SE)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/41 "2010-07-29T00:16:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There was a valid objection to this phrase, however. A “lawful contact” is made between the police and Emma when Emma reports that her home was burglarized, and the police respond to investigate. > > For this reason, the phrase was removed by the passaage of HB 2162, and replaced Yes, you are right and I stand corrected, but I knew that it had been made clear in the final law that a legal stop was required before any immigration status inquiries began. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/42 "2010-07-29T00:17:31Z")
> [@G-SE](#): > > > [@samclem](#): > > > > > [@G-SE](#): > > > > > > On a side note to the whole “papers” thing though, I have lived as a foreigner in both France and Belgium, where I was required by law to have my identification on me. And in Belgium especially because of the neighborhood I lived, I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id. Was it inconvenient? Yes. The end of the world? No. Oh the horrors! > > > > NIce anecdote. Does it apply to the US? Only in the sense that “I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id.” So, you were stopped for what–violating a law? Or just because you looked different? See the connection yet? > > Yes, I was actually stopped because I looked different. I happened to live in a predominantly North African neighborhood, which was also well known for having a few parks where hashish dealers hung out. I have no doubt I was stopped because I was a white guy walking around such a neighborhood. I guess I should be suing the Belgian government for racial profiling… You should have, if racial profiling was illegal there. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/43 "2010-07-29T00:24:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I mean… seriously. How many threads have I spent rebutting this kind of lying crap? **Bricker** , you’re not allowed to call other posters liars in this forum. Tell them they’re wrong however you like if you think they are wrong, but leave their motivations out of it. ---
**Author:** ![bullrun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@bullrun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bullrun)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/44 "2010-07-29T00:31:51Z")
> [@capeo](#): > > > [@bullrun](#): > > > > The Arizona Law dealling with illegals was copied almost word for word from the federal law. The Feds refuse to enforce the law. One of their excuses was that they did not have the manpower. Arizona said ..‘good..then we will help you’. The feds wanted no part of such help. The federal government under obama simply refuses to help American citizens in Arizona defend their state and themselves from an onslaught from another nation. An onslaught that is costing them tons of money and the very lives of their citizens due to a great influx of illegal criminals. > > Dems think they have won a great victory. They are celebrating the defeat of the law by an activist judge. They do not know that this is another nail in their proverbial political coffins. A lot of people are angry over this judge’s ruling. We all have seen the socialism and anti-Americanism of the obama regime. When Washing D.C. will allly’s itself with illegal alien invaders over American citizens; when Washington sides with law breakers and ignores the suffering and needs of it’s own citizens; then the citizens of this nation will must change Washington in Novermber or ignore it. > > This aciton by a liberal judge has added more votes against the democrats in Novermber. People will not forget the plight of Arizona. Washington is hastening the time when people are simply going to quit obeying the dictates of left leaning activist judges. Soon…people and state governments will simply ignore the dictates of Washington D.C. IN most instances…the rules and laws coming out of Washington D.C. are unconstitutional anyway. Let them send their troops. Frankly…when the American people finally get enough…this nation does not have enough troops to enforce their ridiculousness. > > Washington D.C. is run by internationalists. Obama is an internationalists. What does he care of the problems or the borders the nation? > > Yes…he and the dems think the won a great victory today. THey have simply added more fuel to the fire that will eventually virtually burn down their rule. > > It’s quite similar, except for the blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable parts that the judge rightly put a stop too. But I guess freedom, to you, means only your freedoms, huh? > > And, boy, hyperbole much? Do you really expect some kind of well thought out response to what is really nothing but a rant? They are NOT unenforceable. Does that mean you let (for example) terrorists cross borders are set up bombs in public places because it is unenforceable.? I mean…you won’t know the bomb is there usually until it explodes. So…why try and stop them…right.? It is unenforceable. Another thing…NO…really…I didn’t expect some well-thought out answer from you are anyone else…because …refuting the obvious is impossible. The judge was and is a Clinton appointee and an activists that completely let the ACLU almost quote her answer. Like I said…you won nothing. It is not over and will never be over…until November. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/45 "2010-07-29T00:33:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Arizona wouldn’t have been enforcing a federal law, they would be imposing news laws which they have no jurisdiction to pass. I dislike this particular Arizona law for a number of reasons. However, what is the basis for saying that the Arizona state government has no _jurisdiction_ to pass it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/46 "2010-07-29T00:34:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I mean… seriously. How many threads have I spent rebutting this kind of lying crap? > > **Bricker** , you’re not allowed to call other posters liars in this forum. Tell them they’re wrong however you like if you think they are wrong, but leave their motivations out of it. Right. Sorry. The statement is false. It’s unequivocally false, and can easily be shown to be completely false, and dozens of prior references to it sfalsity may be found in each of the many threads on this topic. But I don’t have any idea why he would do such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![bullrun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@bullrun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bullrun)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/47 "2010-07-29T00:35:42Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > > [@bullrun](#): > > > > The Arizona Law dealling with illegals was copied almost word for word from the federal law. The Feds refuse to enforce the law. One of their excuses was that they did not have the manpower. Arizona said ..‘good..then we will help you’. The feds wanted no part of such help. The federal government under obama simply refuses to help American citizens in Arizona defend their state and themselves from an onslaught from another nation. An onslaught that is costing them tons of money and the very lives of their citizens due to a great influx of illegal criminals. > > Dems think they have won a great victory. They are celebrating the defeat of the law by an activist judge. They do not know that this is another nail in their proverbial political coffins. A lot of people are angry over this judge’s ruling. We all have seen the socialism and anti-Americanism of the obama regime. When Washing D.C. will allly’s itself with illegal alien invaders over American citizens; when Washington sides with law breakers and ignores the suffering and needs of it’s own citizens; then the citizens of this nation will must change Washington in Novermber or ignore it. > > This aciton by a liberal judge has added more votes against the democrats in Novermber. People will not forget the plight of Arizona. Washington is hastening the time when people are simply going to quit obeying the dictates of left leaning activist judges. Soon…people and state governments will simply ignore the dictates of Washington D.C. IN most instances…the rules and laws coming out of Washington D.C. are unconstitutional anyway. Let them send their troops. Frankly…when the American people finally get enough…this nation does not have enough troops to enforce their ridiculousness. > > Washington D.C. is run by internationalists. Obama is an internationalists. What does he care of the problems or the borders the nation? > > Yes…he and the dems think the won a great victory today. THey have simply added more fuel to the fire that will eventually virtually burn down their rule. > > These right wing complaint algorithms are getting pretty elaborate. This one almost looks like real speech. I know that compared to the mindnumbed robotic…talking-point responses from the left…the post seems like a speech. But..it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/48 "2010-07-29T00:37:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For this reason, the phrase was removed by the passaage of HB 2162, and replaced with: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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… Honest question here. If there was a robbery/burglary/jaywalking incident in the area, could the police stop people in the the area to ask if they were in the neighbourhood at the time of the incident. Then class this as a “lawful stop” and ask for the relevant documents? I realise a “stop” may have a more specific definition, I would just like to know what that is. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/49 "2010-07-29T00:41:33Z")
> [@bullrun](#): > > The judge was and is a Clinton appointee … Recommended by Republican Senator Kyl, and unanimously approved by a Republican controlled Senate. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/50 "2010-07-29T00:53:56Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > > [@bullrun](#): > > > > The judge was and is a Clinton appointee … > > Recommended by Republican Senator Kyl, and unanimously approved by a Republican controlled Senate. See “ox,” “gored.” ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/51 "2010-07-29T00:57:28Z")
So if a Latino witness or a victim of a crime reported that crime in the Spanish language, that witness or victim could be questioned about immigration status? If the answer is No: Could their immigration status be questioned if they jaywalked in order to report the crime to an officer who was across the street? And if asked for identification for the criminal report and only a Matricula Card could be produced, could their immigration status be questioned? ---
**Author:** ![FloatyGimpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/floatygimpy/32/7750_2.png) [@FloatyGimpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FloatyGimpy)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/52 "2010-07-29T01:01:09Z")
> [@bullrun](#): > > I know that compared to the mindnumbed robotic…talking-point responses from the left…the post seems like a speech. But..it isn’t. Why…do you…keep talking…l…ike…this? ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/53 "2010-07-29T01:16:14Z")
> [@bullrun](#): > > > [@Raygun99](#): > > > > These right wing complaint algorithms are getting pretty elaborate. This one almost looks like real speech. > > I know that compared to the mindnumbed robotic…talking-point responses from the left…the post seems like a speech. But..it isn’t. See, there’s still some flaws. It picked up on the word “speech”, but somehow inserted an article in before it. Back to the programming, guys! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/54 "2010-07-29T01:26:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You know you’re quoting the text of the bill in the Arizona Senate anyway, right? You’re not actually linking to the Arizona laws as enacted, right? You know what that revealed about the true intentions of the legislation, right? :dubious: Well, maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/55 "2010-07-29T01:43:06Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Arizona wouldn’t have been enforcing a federal law, they would be imposing news laws which they have no jurisdiction to pass. > > I dislike this particular Arizona law for a number of reasons. > > However, what is the basis for saying that the Arizona state government has no _jurisdiction_ to pass it? The Constitution gives the federal government sole jurisdiction over immigration and nauralization laws. The states do not have jurisdiction to make their own laws regarding immigration and even their power to enforce them is completely at the discretion of the federal government. States cannot “add or subtract” from federal law. This is the basis of the Justice Department lawsuit (which will win easily). The Supreme Court has already ruled in [Hines v. Davidowitz](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hines_v._Davidowitz) that states cannot require immigrants to carry documentation, so that’s a slam dunk smackdown all by itself. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/56 "2010-07-29T01:44:17Z")
I’ve never been pulled over for reasonable suspicion. I’ve always been pulled over because a headlight or brake light was out. I always got a fixer ticket. But two of my sons have been pulled over for reasonable cause. The youngest was pulled over because he was driving a beater car near midnight with two other high school guys in the car. The cops searched the car for drugs. I pity them. His car was a pig pen. No chance of drugs, though. They stood back trying not to look too amused and were finally released with no ticket. So there wasn’t any traffic reason to have pulled them over. The middle boy, several years later, was visiting the youngest in Colorado. He was pulled over and the car searched for drugs because it was a rental with a California license plate. His girlfriend was pissed because it had taken a lot of planning to get everything to fit in the trunk and they just left everything sitting by the road for them to repack. Also no ticket. I can see why people are nervous. There are all kinds of reasons to pull someone over. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/57 "2010-07-29T01:50:42Z")
Is there any practical difference between “lawful contact” and “lawful stop?” I submit that the answer is no. The cops can use virtually any pretense to stop somebody. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/58 "2010-07-29T01:51:22Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > I’ve never been pulled over for reasonable suspicion. I’ve always been pulled over because a headlight or brake light was out. I always got a fixer ticket. > > **But two of my sons have been pulled over for reasonable cause**. The youngest was pulled over because he was driving a beater car near midnight with two other high school guys in the car. The cops searched the car for drugs. I pity them. His car was a pig pen. No chance of drugs, though. They stood back trying not to look too amused and were finally released with no ticket. So there wasn’t any traffic reason to have pulled them over. > > The middle boy, several years later, was visiting the youngest in Colorado. He was pulled over and the car searched for drugs because it was a rental with a California license plate. His girlfriend was pissed because it had taken a lot of planning to get everything to fit in the trunk and they just left everything sitting by the road for them to repack. Also no ticket. > > I can see why people are nervous. There are all kinds of reasons to pull someone over. Bolding mine. What were the reasonable causes in these situations. Did your sons consent to the searchers? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/59 "2010-07-29T01:58:14Z")
> [@BunnyTVS](#): > > Honest question here. If there was a robbery/burglary/jaywalking incident in the area, could the police stop people in the the area to ask if they were in the neighbourhood at the time of the incident. Then class this as a “lawful stop” and ask for the relevant documents? I realise a “stop” may have a more specific definition, I would just like to know what that is. No. The police could approach people and ask, but not stop them. A stop implicates the Fourth Amendment and requires reasonable, articulable suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/60 "2010-07-29T02:01:17Z")
So Arizona is not allowed to enforce federal laws that are being ignored and unenforced due to unpopularity among the current ruling party. Wouldn’t it be a bitch if it Arizona decided to turn around and stop enforcing all state laws that were also covered by federal ones? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345.md?page=4)