“Serious” is a matter of opinion. From October 2008 to May 2009, the Border Patrol arrested 354,959 individuals along the Mexican-U.S. border. “Serious” is not a synonym for “airtight.”
And I have explained many times before that the easiest and most appropriate course is to ask everyone, from the most albino’d Swede to the most albedo’d Nigerian, if he’s a citizen or legal resident.
What’s wrong with that approach?
Because there are absolutely NO OTHER REASONS. Your ridiculous example of giving the wrong answer to a citizenship question doesn’t disprove that, who do you think is going to be asked for green cards? what is going to happen when word gets around that all you gotta say is “I’m a Us citizen”?
Ok so why do you think no president in history has controlled the border? they didn’t feel like it?
There is a lot wrong with that approach, but first I need to ask: what happens following that question of “…are you a legal resident?”
And I’m asking you personally, how will you handle this situation, what is your response?
Because the ‘what’s wrong with this approach’ is that the officer’s response is going to be, “I don’t believe you.”
So now what?
Which is why this reminds me too much of, “have you been drinking,” and “are there drugs in the car?” They are both followed with, “I don’t believe you, here blow into this while I get the drug dogs.”
I’m quite aware that people like you exist in the real world. Fortunately, your kind is quite rare, except perhaps out in the hinterlands.
It’s always good to be reminded that extremists exist on both sides of the political spectrum. So if you were wondering why people on the left are bothered by the potential of this law, it’s because there are police officers that agree with Lonesome Polecat.
Define rare? Didn’t someone comment on the polls showing the number of people in favour of this law?
Hell if i was a racist “Arizona cop” would be my dream job right now.
Let’s look at this one because it’s what I see as the most likely. The “crime” in this case is being in the country illegally.
So my first issue is why the cop asked about residency in the first place. Did have any reason at all to ask that? Any more reason that to ask if they have drugs?
So the cop asks a question, then the suspect panics and runs. Now the cop has a reason to be suspicious so he makes an arrest.
This person now has to prove that he his a legal resident.
This is the actual part that I have a problem with. How long is a “reasonable period of time?” It bothers me because in the process of applying this law, at some point, a legal resident/citizen will be detained–only to eventually prove they are in fact legal.
This is the part that becomes harassment. How many times would you be willing to go through this process?
I have answered this objection before as well.
For dozens of years, the law has been that absent probable cause, an officer needs consent to search a vehicle. So you might say to me in the same vein, "What is going to happen when word gets around that all you gotta say is, “No, I don’t consent to a search?” Indeed, given the years and years involved, you’d have to concede that the word HAS gotten around as much as it ever will – yes?
And yet every day, people are stopped by police and this conservation happens:
COP: “Say, you all don’t have any guns, knives, rocket launchers, grenades, anything in the back there I should know about, do you?”
DRIVER: “No.”
COP: “Then you don’t mind if I take a look, right?”
DRIVER: “Uhh… I guess not…”
Whereupon cop finds the drugs and arrests driver.
You can’t argue with that. It’s a fact. It happens all the time.
So why do you assume that this will be any different?
It is a card version of a passport. It is used for ground or sea border crossings.
It depends on the answer.
I have laid out a couple of examples above. If you’d like to pose a particular answer, I’ll be happy to explain what, if anything, the cop can do as a follow-on.
If I’m asked the question?
My response would be, “Am I free to go, officer?”
Who cares what he believes? The question is what can do. And unless he can point to a specific, articulable, and permissible reason for his disbelief, he cannot detain or arrest anyone.
Undoubtedly there are similarities.
But you gloss over the similarities that matter.
He can’t compel a breath test or a field sobriety test without specific, articulable facts that give rise to the inference that the driver is intoxicated. He can summon drug dogs, yes, but cannot unduly delay the traffic stop for them to arrive. And you can’t complain about the outside of your car being sniffed by drug dogs, because that doesn’t infringe your privacy in any legally cognizable way.
Somewhat naively, perhaps, I do not automatically assume that people who support this law are racist.
In fact, given the amendment discussed above, I might even be in favor of it.
He doesn’t need one… any more than under current law he needs a reason to approach someone on the street and ask if they are in possession of illegal drugs. That’s the law, everywhere in the country. The police are free to approach you and ask you any question they like.
And you are free to disregard that inquiry and go about your business.
Not an arrest, no. But he could detain the individual briefly to investigate. There’s no law against running away from a cop.
But that’s the current state of the law in every nook and cranny of this land. It’s by no means something unique to Arizona.
And let me point out again that if the suspect merely walks away, there’s no cause for a detention.
There’s hope for you yet! 
And I assume that, like me, you’d be open to seeing if the law was in fact abused in practice, and willing to withdraw your approval if that was the case.
But on its face, it is not objectionable.
There is a border patrol checkpoint ~30 miles north of Nogales, AZ on I-19. The border patrol stops all traffic norbound towards Tucson. They ask all drivers and passengers some variation of the question “What is you country of origin?” (in Spanish or English as appropriate).
All that is required is to reply with some variation of “I am a U.S. citizen”, and they wave you on your way.
Despite this easy check. They arrest thousands of illegals every year at this stop. (They have a tote board at the stop counting the arrests.)
I have driven through this check-point hundreds of times. (Sometimes for variation they have a drug-dog there as well sniffing all the cars.)
(On preview) As always Bricker has answered this much better than I could.
I would say that on its face, it is no longer objectionable, and that the opposition to the law was largely justified to begin with.
The speechifying from the governor and training materials produced later on could simply have had their salient points written into the bill, which would have simplified things a great deal.
It still remains to be seen, of course, whether the DOJ will prevail in its challenge to the law.
To clarify, you are saying that the pre-modified version of the law was objectionable, and that the modifications erased your objections?
And I hate to turn you away from your new-found ally status, but the DOJ’s challenge is on pre-emption grounds, which we haven’t really discussed here, despite that being (in my view) the most promising area to challenge…
That is not what we were discussing. I agree the only way to kick out bias is to ask everybody. But more than that, if they are without acceptable proof, and as I showed the vast majority of all people would be, then it is off to incarceration for them. But you know damn well that is not what will happen. A white guy in a Lexus will not be delayed from his busy white way. A poor brown person has a lot more jeopardy.
If it was everybody ,the result would be police state where everybody a cop pulls over has to have proof on him. I don’t like it at all.