You’ve got to be kidding? I’ve known Tejanos and New Mexicans who hate Mexicans more than you and Bricker that have accents. I’ve been pulled over by State and Local Police with accents. Not too mention all the guys and gals with Customs while crossing the Border with accents and all the Border Patrol Checkpoints that had Agents with accents. I guess that if any of these poor bastards are ever in the racist state of Arizona, then they better be wearing their uniform or carrying their Passport.
This is where Bricker’s head explodes.
I don’t know why he bothers, honestly. It is simply impossible to dissuade someone from this particular position, it would appear, even with facts and specifics and real-world references. It is a position gripped with a tenacity that is fascinating to behold.
Wow. I never thought of that.
Bolton’s decision had nothing to do with the bad effects of the law. It had to do with her view that the law couldn’t be passed by a state because immigration is a federal concern.
Seriously. It’s as though the fact that I have answered that concern repeatedly is just erased; I picture people doing the keyboard equivalent of covering their ears and chanting, “La la la I can’t hear you!!!”
The indignant outrage when conservatives ignore the facts in the health care debate – which they did – was quite compelling, and I really sympathized with the liberals cries about debating on the merits and decrying those that would poison the debate with lies. They were right about that, of course.
And now we get here, and we realize that their commitment to truth is… er… a passing one, vanishing rapidly when the truth doesn’t help them.
You’re right, I’m sorry, I forgot to add, “everyone in the car says ‘I’m a citizen’ and no one whispers to his buddy, 'dude tell him you forgot it at home.” Or what ever else was part of the “real world scenario.”
Did you ever notice how liberals drive like this, ‘do do do’ but conservatives drive like this, ‘ta ta ta.’
I know!! And don’t get me started on how they dance!
Seriously, you’re going to stick with this position? No illegal alien would ever incriminate himself, not once the word gets out? Because there’s just no precedent for criminals generously providing the basis for their arrest?
Someone should have considered this irrefutable aspect of human nature then, since there is no such behavior in the “real world.” None dammit, move along now. If only someone could have come up with any sort of example. Anything. But, alas, criminals simply do not incriminate themselves, not after the grapevine provides an airtight solution. It is part of the natural law.
This thread is a riot. 
The only answer I have seen you offer regarding illegals claiming to be citizens is that they are ignorant of the law, or they are too afraid to lie to police. Did I miss something else?
Okay everyone, here is the “real world” example that Bricker used to show reasonable suspicion.
In this case, we give the officer the benefit of the doubt that race wasn’t a factor, and assume he’s been asking people at random about their citizenship.
The reasonable suspicion was arrived at by the response from the suspect’s friends. Which is brutally fucking obvious to everyone and their dog!
Cop: Did you commit a crime?
Suspect: yes
Well obviously the cop now has reasonable suspicion. My main beef at the start involved the factors that initially cause the officer to ask. So we’ve established that cops now ask everyone all the time. “License, registration, proof of insurance, and proof of legal residency.” I’m fine with that.
What causes my head to explode is that I asked repeatedly for a “real world scenario” that didn’t involve a dude with his friends, where someone voluntarily confesses.
COP: By the way, are you a citizen, sir, or a legal resident?
SUSPECT 1: I’m not going to answer that.
COP: ____________
What does the cop do next? This is where I kept asking about reasonable suspicion, but kept getting directed to the first case.
The first case is irrelevant, the dude’s friend outed him. Everyone that is against the bill what’s to know what happens when a cop pulls over a driver with a cracked windshield, asks about citizenship, and is told, “I’m not going to answer that.”
Those of us a little wary of how cops have historically treated minorities and a some what pessimistic of this new law.
For those applauding this jurisdictional ruling, let’s assume it’s the Feds who choose to actually enforce the immigration laws in question. Is there any scenario you could envision where reasonable suspicion for the Federal agent could exist that someone is an illegal alien? Any at all? Or should we repeal every such immigration law because they are largely unenforceable–once an illegal alien is in the country, he’s in. There’s just no detecting him.
Do you take offense at such enforcement only when an Arizona police officer is involved? I hadn’t noticed any movement to repeal the Federal laws, but perhaps it escaped my scrutiny.
This has been asked and answered about a thousand times. In the absence of anything else suspicious, nothing happens. Same as the guy with a trunk full of pot who tells the cop, “No, I don’t agree to a search.” Nothing happens.
It is Federal jurisdiction. Arizona is trying to usurp the jurisdiction for political reasons. There is no great crime wave. There is no wave of burglaries. Brewer is appealing to the lowest levels of voters who blame aliens for everything.
How do you get rid of illegals? Go after those who hire them. getting a job requires any employee to produce paperwork. That is not the same as harassing citizens with no reason to believe they are illegal. INS has raided companies and found they are staffed by illegals. That is where you focus . It is not the states job.
Okay, so here we go again, let’s see if you get it this go around:
You have now established that absent a person incriminating himself, there is no reasonable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant.
In the case of a guy with pot in his truck, or a drunk driver, the cop has a recourse, he can sit in a court of law and say something like, “his car reeked of weed” or “we was swerving, slurred speech, and reeked of booze.”
Which is why most of us came to the very reasonable conclusion that the only “reasonable suspicion” involved ethnicity (race).
So now, what is the point of the law if the only “reasonable suspicion” is based on self-incrimination?
I would direct you to read the question again, but based on prior exchanges, I don’t believe it will lead to a fruitful outcome.
You’re completely missing the point. The cop needs no reason to ask the driver if there’s anything illegal in the trunk. None. There doesn’t need to be any smell of marijuana or any erratic driving. Reasonable suspicion is not a requirement to ask a question. The cop can ask whatever he wants. But if the cop has no reasonable suspicion, and the driver says, “No, you can’t search the trunk,” then he can’t look in the trunk. He just can’t. Sorry.
And honest to God, I am sincerely amused at the degree of affection you seem to hold for your position, in that you seem to develop amnesia when faced with a fact or an answer that contradicts your belief. This has been asked and answered and answered and answered and… There is no reasonable conclusion that reasonable suspicion could be based on an illegal foundation. That is, in fact, the very definition of unreasonable. Reasonable suspicion is not some new-fangled notion they cooked up for this law. It is subject to judicial review. “He looks Hispanic” gets your ass kicked by a judge if you’re a cop and that’s your “reasonable suspicion.”
And the point of the law? To catch criminals. Why would you oppose it if that occurs through legal means?
We already told you the answer to the first part: everyone that passes through a point of entry is suspected of illegal entry. It is on the onus of the person trying to enter the country to prove their identity and the legality of their residency. This goes for everyone including citizens.
Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to be suspicious of a person running from the border. That is reasonable suspicion.
And third, verify the residency of everyone arrested, or convicted of a crime. This part just makes sense to me and I don’t understand why it wasn’t done already.
So a question for you, do you see it as a valid use of resources to have Federal ICE agents patrolling the streets randomly asking individuals to prove residency?
And since you are trying to slide one way down the slope, perhaps you’ll consider the other side to the slope: do you see a point where we have random check points throughout the country with armed guards asking, “show me your papers.”
I’m not asking about border checks. That occurs, and it should. I would have thought it was clear I was asking about enforcement focusing on those already across the border, say those wandering around Arizona. Are the Feds’ hands tied? Could they have reasonable suspicion of an illegal alien in Phoenix, or is it only Arizona cops who would be unable to fashion such a conclusion?
How is this materially different from doing so during a traffic stop, if reasonable suspicion existed?
No. Were you under the impression I’d like the Feds randomly questioning people?
I don’t know what slope you thinking I’m sliding down. I thought I was taking the counter position. But to answer your question–no, I don’t see that happening.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? I haven’t missed the point, I got it fully, “cop can ask anything to anyone.” He does not need any reason. We all get that, move the fuck on.
From there with have two possible scenarios:
[1] Person incriminates himself. Obviously that provides reasonable cause for a search. Who the fuck doesn’t get that!
[2] Person refuses. Now the cop can’t do anything.
What part of that is confusing to you?
The question I wanted an answer to was, “what is considered reasonable suspicion?”
I was given several answers to case [1], and now both you and Bricker agree nothing happens after [2].
So woop-de-fucking-do. We have a bill that is supposed to get tough on illegal immigration, and do what the federal government isn’t doing. Except, but your own admission, the bill is pointless since everyone can simply say, “no answer” and go about their business. The only people they’ll net are the ones stupid enough to confess, or trusting enough to admit they made a mistake (leaving their green card at home).
Arizona would have been better off having a “free boat for illegal immigrants.”