Of course I can. How do you think we’ve been running things for decades now? As for how I’d control illegal immigration, as I’ve already mentioned upthread I’d give the laws against employee illegals some teeth. Employee an illegal, and you face ten years in prison. Get rid of the jobs, and you get rid of the reason why they’re coming to the US. None of this “treating the symptoms” bullshit which erodes the rights of citizens.
It’s very unlikely you are, since a National ID card doesn’t exist (you might remember some debate over the concept a year or so back). It’s much more likely that you are carrying a “Drivers License” card, which is required when you do that optional activity called “driving” (since we like to know that everyone driving on our roads knows how to do so), or you are carrying a “Social Security” card, which is only necessary when you take a new job (since we like to have paycheck earners pay the taxes that keep our infrastructure running). You might be surprised to find out that *neither *of those are required when you just walk around town, and, in fact, no ID is (currently) required for that activity.
**Bricker ** gave three examples and in all three we assume the cop is asking everyone as a matter of policy:
[1] Suspect confesses
[2] Friend incriminates the suspect
[3] Suspect refuses to answer.
So I’m going to ask again, other than self incrimination (or a friend ratting you out) what are the causes for reasonable suspicion (jurisdictional or not)?
My question to you: should cops give up all their other efforts in favour of just “asking people at random?”
You weaseled and said, “a huge number.” Well, what does that mean other than you don’t know?
Out of a million traffic stops, [1] how many criminals would confess [2] how many criminals would be missed [3] how many innocents would be caught?
My belief? Based on personal experience, the sub-population that this law is aimed at has a high degree of cohesiveness (I think that’s the word I want).
If a specific law was set up to target them, such as cops asking about citizenship during a routine traffic stop, and there was a way to get out of it scott-free, that information would spread within that sub-population.
To bring this back to the drug example: the population of people with drugs in their car is very large, but then the population of highschool kids with drugs in their car is a smaller sub-population.
If cops set up check points around schools to specifically target highschool students with drugs in their car, I believe that the first few would incriminate themselves. After about a week, word would spread that all you have to say is, “I don’t submit to a search.”
Absent any other reasonable suspicion, the cop has no reason to search–kid goes free.
Take this example one step in the other direction: consider the drug kingpin criminal mastermind. Once he realizes that cops are asking to search cars near his distribution center, and that if you say “no” they let you drive away, he will tell ALL of his drivers to say, “No you may not search my car.”
You have failed to achieve what you set out to do. Instead, you get people that are stupid and say, “yes.” But wait, these people are stupid, and haven’t done anything wrong. So now cops have to follow up with a complete search only to find nothing. Great use of police man power.
Actually, drunk drivers make a better example: consider a law that has cops asking everyone if they’ve been drinking–the purpose of the law is to catch alcoholics, where alcoholics are a sub-population of the entire “people who had a drink.”
First week, cops ask everyone, “have you been drinking?”
Both alcoholics and regulars confess.
Second week, word spreads in the AA meetings, so now cop asks, “Have you been drinking.”
Regulars confess, but they aren’t drunk so it ties up both them and the cops.
Alcoholics say, “I refuse to answer.”
So yes, you will net all sorts of morons, but in those two specifics you will miss the very people you were trying to get. That is the false negative on the situation.
In the mean time, you are going to catch a bunch of morons that are innocent and/or tie them up in a legal snafu: that is your false positive.
So my belief is that this law as applied is pointless in dealing with it’s written purpose (catching illegal aliens), but perfect for it’s intended purpose (harassing people that look like illegal aliens).
Let’s clarify: One question, to those who say it’s not possible for reasonable suspicion to exist, is whether or not this applies even if a Federal agent were to arrive at such an assessment with regard to someone already within the borders. I am asking you if you can envision any such a situation, one where reasonable suspicion exists within the mind of a Federal agent. I’m asking you if you could speculate as to what such a reasonable suspicion might be. Is this law such an unenforceable non sequitur that we ought to repeal it, or is that only a factor when Arizona policemen apply it? If it is, why no outrage over the very existence of such a law, whoever enforces it?
The second question, specifically to you, was why you would oppose confirmation of citizenship status during a traffic stop, if reasonable suspicion exists, if you support such a process for arrests and convictions. What’s the material difference, in other words. You asked for an example of reasonable suspicion, and I pointed out that several have been provided. You clearly don’t like these examples, but they are plausible hypotheticals nonetheless. Why you need a different one is not clear, relative to this specific question (or any other, frankly). If all this law catches are those dumb enough to incriminate themselves, that’s something. Your post to Bricker again ignores the fact that for decades and decades and decades, countless people could have avoided a search of their cars simply by saying, “No.” And yet they didn’t. And real criminal activity was uncovered. Those with an empty trunk went on their way. And, yes, there were undoubtedly those sharp enough to refuse a search, who also went on their merry way with a trunk full of pot. Such is the nature of our constitutional protections.
Wait a minute–are you under the impression that “reasonable suspicion” gives the cop cause and authority to delay the suspect indefinitely and subject them to any process the cop would like? You know that’s not the case, right? It is a standard less than probable cause, and it gives the cop much less leeway in terms of detaining someone. He needs to wrap it up quickly. Are you aware of that? The legal swamp you seem to be guarding against, the one where these false positives will create some shapeless “legal snafu” for an endless parade of innocents, doesn’t exist. Not unless the cop completely ignores the law or is incompetent. Reasonable suspicion gives the cop authority to briefly detain and question (Terry stops let them briefly search a person for weapons too, but that’s a different debate).
Can we agree that your opinion on the effectiveness of this law depends on whether you believe illegal immigrants are mostly stupid, and will self incriminate; or you believe illegal immigrants are mostly smart enough to game the system (as claimed by the right wing narrative, with regard to getting free medical care, food stamps and other social welfare benefits).
And your opinion about the risk of abuse of the rights of citizens and legal residents hinges on whether you believe that law enforcement can be trusted not to target all Latinos by selective enforcement of the letter of the law with a rigor not directed at non-Latino population so as to manufacture reasonable suspicion and justify detention.
Is that an accurate depiction of the faultlines in this debate? If not, why not?
I can probably craft some highly unrealistic ones… (Suspect wearing a button that says, “I cut the fence at El Paso – Ask Me How!”) But I suppose that falls under “self-incrimination.”
Slightly more realistic - officer recognizes suspect from previous encounters.
Other than that – I can’t think of too many ways reasonable suspicion would exist.
But just as police are highly effective in getting consent to search when they have no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that would allow them to do so without consent, I am confident that the law, as is, without any abuses, will net plenty of people.
Highly educated and intelligent people commit the same sorts of errors with police all the time. And by “error,” I mean consenting to searches. It’s not stupidity; it’s lack of specialized knowledge and experience. Police are taught in detail what they can and cannot say; they role-play it in training and get graded on how right they are. They do it every single day.
Persons that encounter police do it once, twice, maybe 20 times for the truly recidivist. They don’t have detailed training sessions, except from fellow inmates,who are themselves confident and detailed (but often wrong) sources of the law.
It’s not a “fair” contest.
Yes. And like many other things, it will be self-interest, not altruism and a soaring human spirit, that provides the best bulwark. By adopting a policy of asking everyone, law enforcement can shield themselves against accusations of bias and selective enforcement.
Let’s see how Bricker can explain this incident. Summary: peace activist arrested at an anti-Arizona immigration law protest, released later when judge admits there were absolutely no grounds for said arrest. So, right-wing spin doctors, rationalize away.
That simply means our evil plan is falling into place. :rolleyes:
You understand, I hope, that even if this was a bogus arrest, it was not done under the law we’re debating. IOW, this is not an example of how this law can be incorrectly applied, since it wasn’t this law that was applied. This was all about people blocking the entrance to a public building, again, even if this particular arrest was bogus. These weren’t illegal aliens being arrested. Seriously, do you not get that? What exactly do you think this confirms with regard to the law we’re debating?
Because it is an example of how authority could be abused under the purview of the immigration law in question. I doubt the thugs in question will limit their abuses to mere protestors at street assemblies.
I was asked how I felt about a national ID card. My response is that I carry one. If I’m in Canada it verifies who I am. I visit or work at the discretion of Canadian law.
Ignoring the fact that false ID’s are used to get jobs what would you do with the illegal aliens after the employer goes to jail? What are you going to do with illegal aliens who are self employed?
Out of curiosity, *do you *have an issue with the way that this stop is conducted?
Because, if you do, it would seem that you have an issue with the larger question of immigration enforcement and not just specifically Arizona’s take on it. And if not, why do you have an issue with AZ law enforcement asking the same questions already asked by US Border Patrol?
Dude, the law itself demands that legally accepted standards be followed. Is that in the talking points now? Continued insistence that the law has as its sole purpose to facilitate harassment and abuse? Repeat until any undecided idiots actually believe it?
Why on earth would you ask me about reasonable suspicion when I have been asking that since the beginning?
My answer is quite simple: no, as far as a traffic stop goes, I see no reasonable suspicion other than self incrimination. Let’s see what **Bricker **says on the matter:
So even Bricker agrees that there aren’t many reasons why a cop would have reasonable suspicion.
We have everyone and their dog agreeing that other than race and self incrimination there aren’t many reasons why a cop on a routine traffic stop would have reasonable suspicion.
This is why people opposed to this law were worried about it codifying racial profiling, and leading to the harassment of visible minorities.
First, because there is no reasonable suspicion other than self incrimination. Second, a traffic stop is a stupid place to deal with this sort of thing, just like taxes. I’ll explain this further is a second.
Because in those three examples, there was no reasonable suspicion beyond self incrimination. Do you not understand that?
Great, so let local cops deal with real criminal activity, and let the feds deal with immigration issues.
Have you ever actually cross the border? Are you familiar with the process? This law is so worried about residency issues, why not worry about customs issues too.
“Sir, did you bring anything into the country that you didn’t declare?”
“Sir, have you poached any wild game?”
“Sir, have you smoked in the washroom of a commercial airline or tampered with the smoke detector?”
Here is something you aren’t aware of. The state I live in requires me, an immigrant, to verify my visa status with them every year. And every year they fuck it up. It’s not as easy as flashing a card or handing over a note from your mom. If the DMV can’t do it, how the fuck is a cop supposed to do it on the side of an Arizona highway?
Secondly, because of the nature of our visas, we go through a lot of extra hassle every time we cross the border. I have encountered a US Customs official in Miami that didn’t know what an H4 visa was. I have encountered US customs officials that didn’t understand what a TD or TN visa was. I have encountered US customs officials in northern Minnesota that didn’t understand how to switch someone from a TD to an H1-B. I have also encountered US customs officials that didn’t know whether or not I was allowed to bring live lobster into the country (I can btw).
I’ve spent countless hours in countless customs screening rooms waiting for US customs to verify my residency.
So now you want Arizona police officers to know and understand US immigration policy? And some how perform that function in the middle of a fucking desert? Not fucking likely. For 3 years proof of my legal residency was a small piece of paper clumsily stapled into my passport. What is an officer supposed to do when I had him that, given that US customs officials can’t even handle it.
Actually verifying citizenship or legal residency is no where near as easy as you’d like to think it is. Which brings us to the second fucked up part of this bullshit law: if an Arizona officer can’t verify someone’s documents in a reasonable amount of time, he has to be let go, so what’s the fucking point?