Before I can answer your specific question I need more information:
You said you’ve been through it, and I assume as a citizen, do you always get waved through? What is the purpose of this stop? What happens to people that something other than “I am a U.S. citizen.” Do you actually know?
Second, how would you feel about this stop being all over the US? How many hours a day are you willing to sit in a US Customs line? Would you be willing to go through that every day on your way to work, and every day on your way home?
Third, how much do you think that check point costs to run?
I’m sorry. You seem to have been unclear. You must show your passport card to other government representatives upon request when? From context, I have to ask, if you’re walking down the street, and a cop asks you, are you saying you must show them this card? Or if a fireman asks you? Or a mayor asks you? How about the FBI?
I didn’t. I asked a general question to anyone in the thread. You decided to answer it. The “you” I referred to in my last post was a generic “you.” Go look–my original question was not posed to you. You quoted it in your response, so I’m assuming you actually read it. You then seemed to conflate different points, and in the process, asked me for an example of reasonable suspicion in response to my request for exactly that.
I suspect that’s largely true. I believe that’s good enough.
If he can’t, he has to cut the suspect loose. Such is the nature of “reasonable suspicion,” a notion you seem to be unfamiliar with. The cop doesn’t get to detain someone indefinitely, and if he can’t confirm the citizenship status quickly (meaning, he doesn’t know if the person is legal or not), tough shit, he has to let the suspect go. “Reasonable suspicion” does not give the cop carte blanche. In fact, it doesn’t give him much leeway at all. And, again, this is all subject to judicial review, where the judiciary kicks the asses of cops who abuse their power. Or are they in on this conspiracy of abuse as well?
Well there we go. Asked and answered. A police office, during a routine traffic stop, will not be able to verify a person’s residency in a reasonable period of time, since I assume they are going to be at least as long as US Customs officials operating within a US Customs facility.
So first we have the fact that when asked a person can simply refuse to answer. Second, even if he can’t answer it will take too long to verify.
There is no *reasonable *suspicion concerning a person’s legal status. And there is no *reasonable *way to verify that information.
Police already have the power to verify the identity of someone. That citizenship is included in this process of verification is a logical function of that ability.
I don’t understand how firemen or mayors relate to the law in question unless you’re just trying to parse words to win a debate point.
I’ll ignore the fact that you continue to assert there’s no possibility of reasonable suspicion, despite the examples provided, since it seems a lost cause. You apparently have a lot invested in this erroneous belief, so who am I to upset that particular apple cart for you.
I don’t know enough about the difficulty of verifying citizenship status to agree with you or not on the other point. I have acknowledged that this law could well be toothless and ineffective. That’s up to Arizona, so long as the law doesn’t violate any constitutional protections. Which this does not. They get to decide what laws best serve them, and everybody else should mind their own business. That’s how democracies work.
I also don’t believe there is any widespread opposition to this law because of a belief that it will not lead to any arrests, and I mean legal arrests, validly made. The level of outrage over this is not over a pointless law that will do nothing.
This is then the cue for people to recite the parade of horribles that will result from this law, with zero evidence to support these claims, and the actual text of the law in contradiction to their assertions. Then we repeat the exchange, ad infinitum.
No, I do (or did) not always get waved through. The Border Patrol would periodically allow bunches of cars to pass unstopped and unquestioned when the traffic at the stop backed up to the point it was warranted. Otherwise they stopped and questioned all vehicles.
According to the Border Patrol … “This strategy includes the use of traffic checkpoints generally located from 25 to 100 miles of the border, where Border Patrol agents screen vehicles for any illegal aliens or contraband that were able to cross the border undetected.”
Yes, I actually do. My wife has never answered any query from the Border Patrol with “I am a U.S. citizen”. (She’s a permanent resident)
It is. Well at least in the southwest. These checkpoints exist throughout California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Personally I find them to be a very minor inconvience.
Well, the Border Patrol stops are not the same as a US customs line (Such as found at the border crossings and airports) where a more thorough inspection is conducted. The normal wait time at these points is about 5 minutes (or less).
I have (Well, one side anyway. They do not check traffic flowing south) But, as I said, it is a very minor inconvience.
I have no idea.
So, again …
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?
I asked repeatedly about what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Are you talking about the three examples that **Bricker **posted? If so, all three involve an officer asking, and a person incriminating themselves.
Is that the only cause for reasonable suspicion? There is no apple cart, it is not an erroneous belief. Other than self incrimination, what reasonable suspicion is there?
And what happens to people that aren’t carrying proper documentation (either citizens or not)?
I really need to know that part of it before I can give a real answer.
My suspicion (based on the information you told me) is that I would have to go through the same bullshit I go through at the airport customs stop. I am a legal alien and I go through a lot of hassle, it sucks.
I would not want to have to go through that twice a day.
Just so you understand this side of the issue: I am a **legal **alien, I am allowed to be here. But there is a good chance I will get caught up in this process, representing a false positive.
As a ridiculous example, imagine if a small portion of the population naturally *smelled *like marijuana. But they don’t have any drugs on them ever. If there were random check points with drug sniffers, this portion of the population would be continuously harassed.
This debate gets reduced to two groups: citizens vs illegals. In between those two are millions of legally aliens that are going to caught up in this mess.
Do you find that site a neutral, detached source of information?
Before even doing the first bit of investigation beyond reading your link, it jumps out at me that the site’s account spins a little and you spin a little more. Specifically, I see that according to you, both the judge and the prosecutor “admit” there was no probable cause for the arrest. And you tell us he was “released,” suggesting to the reader that the charges were dismissed.
Yet I see that in fact, the peace activist did not have the charges dismissed. The judge released him on bond, his bond being his own word to appear at future proceedings. This is called “being released on his own recognizance.” He’s on bond, and must return to court to answer the charges against him.
It’s not clear to me what type of proceeding this was, but I imagine it was at an arraignment. The purpose of an arraignment is to inform the accused of the charges against him, accept an initial plea, set (or deny) bond, and calendar the case.
It typically does not include receiving evidence from the prosecution, and whatever statement the prosecutor made about the sufficiency of his evidence obviously did not include the words, “We’re dropping the charges.”
So the best explanation I have for this is that the article’s author couched his description of events in misleading language, and you did the same thing with the already misleading language.
And for every reader still with us, let me ask you: what message do you take away when defenders of a point of view have to resort to tactics like these to try to persuade you?
This news story, which seems to be a more mainstream, neutral source, reports that Reza was arrested the previous day:
As to the arrest on July 30:
So it seems to me that if in fact one of the sheriff’s deputies can testify that Reza was part of the group that “tried to block the road into the Sheriff’s Office training center” then the prosecution will in fact be able to establish probable cause.
So my reaction now is that the police had probable cause to make the arrest.
In the specific case of my wife, she declares herself as a resident alien and shows her card. She keeps her permanent resident card with her at all times. This stop (when she is involved, either with me, or alone) is still a very minor inconvience. The entire stop including wait takes less than 5 min (interaction with the Border Patrol taking 15-30 seconds of that time).
Persons who are further detained are moved to the side and further questioned to verify status. During the (single) time my wife did not have her resident card, this further verification took about 10 min.
Third attempt …
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?
Yes, that’s the reasonable suspicion! God almighty, can you be this obtuse? You hand-waving them away does not render them anything other than what they are–examples of reasonable suspicion. The fact that you have now established the “emacknight standard,” which means that reasonable suspicion doesn’t count if it is provided by the suspect himself, doesn’t carry any weight in law. These are examples of reasonable suspicion! Let me repeat for the thousandth time: these are examples of reasonable suspicion. You said, “There is no reasonable suspicion concerning a person’s legal status,” which is idiotic in the face of the examples provided.
If you respond yet again by asserting some variation of, “since there can be no reasonable suspicion,” you will be inviting the question, “seriously, what is wrong with you?” What is so difficult about this? Do you have some kind of learning disability?
Note, the following answer is based on the insufficient information you’ve provided, since you don’t know what happens to illegals that are caught, or what happens to people like me with slightly more complicated visa issues.
The reasons I am for that sort of check point are as follow:
[1] It is set up in a targeted manner. You mentioned that they set up on the roads and highways leading away from the border crossing. Do you see how that is different from setting up along on the 80 from Omaha to Des Moines? Or just driving around asking people at random? Or tacking the question onto an unrelated event like buying lumber.
[2] It involves immigration officials dealing with an immigration issue. Do you see the way those words line up? They don’t involve IRS agents asking about food safety. They don’t involve health inspectors asking about tax issues. The people doing the job are trained to deal with the task.
[3] There is a stated purpose–catching stuff missed at the border–and it’s actions reflect that purpose.
Here are the reasons I am against that check point:
[1] It takes me and my wife a long time to go through customs. For us it’s not as simple as flashing a passport or permanent resident card (green card). Are you aware that there are other legal ways of being in the country?
As I said earlier, I have experience immigration officials and border agents that didn’t know what a TN/TD or H4 visa was. They didn’t know how to switch someone from a TD to an H4. They didn’t know what piece of paper to staple in my passport. And they didn’t know what to do when I arrived with the wrong piece of paper in my passport.
All of those actions occurred at a border crossing, where one would assume the agents are trained, and have access to passport readers. What do you suppose will happen to me when I encounter someone with even less training, and even less access to documents?
I don’t have the same confidence you have that this stop will be a minor inconvenience taking only a few minutes.
Do you know see how this check point is very different from having a cop question people at random traffic stops?
For everyone else: the US doesn’t have enough health inspectors, and as a result millions of people get sick each year from food born illnesses. Why not have cops stop by restaurants and meat processing facilities at random and have them ask questions about sanitation?
The US government also loses a lot of money to tax fraud. Seems like a good things for local cops to ask people about while following up on routine investigations.
Now that I think of it, music piracy is still a problem. During traffic stops, cops should be checking people’s music collection and verifying that they paid for them properly.
And as we’ve all learned in the health care threads, medicare fraud is huge, costing the government millions. I propose that after cops ask about immigration status, they should ask about medicare fraud too.
You may think they’re poor public policy, or a poor use of resources, but that’s not your decision to make.
If you would permit a court to strike down a law simply because the judge doesn’t agree that the law makes the best use of police resources, then you have created a “super legislature,” composed of unelected lifetime appointees wgo can write the law they think is the best policy for the country.
Now, this may be a very workable system of governance, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not the one were supposed to have right now.
I do know what happens. Undocumented aliens are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and then returned to the border (or other as appropriate). ‘More complicated’ Visa issues are normally handled with a few additional questions. A passport and Visa make this a breeze.
Good thing the proposed AZ law does not have law enforcement doing any of those things. (…setting up along on the 80 from Omaha to Des Moines, or just driving around asking people at random, or tacking the question onto an unrelated event like buying lumber)
And the proposed law would have AZ law enforcement enforcing AZ law. It can (and is) being argued that AZ cannot pass such a law without encroaching on US law but, that is getting away from the topic at hand. Namely, that law enforcement can be successful with this type of stop/questioning.
As you may, or may not be aware, when the INS was dissolved it’s functions were split up into (essentially) 3 different agencies – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).
When you are entering the United States at a port of entry, you are most likely dealing with the USCIS or the ICE. This is unbelievably unpleasant for everyone. I have done this many times and it is a long, slow, painful process. I feel like a criminal every time I am forced to deal with them. The Border Patrol is a different agency (much more like classic law enforcement agents). They patrol non ports of entry (illegal crossing points) and the US interior.
It already is …Stops done by the border patrol at the checkpoints are fairly quick and painless. Border Patrol does not make the final determination as to legal status (They are neither trained nor expected to) nor would AZ law enforcement. Both would decide weather to turn investigation over to ICE based on probable cause.
Zoomer, I’m going to address your last point first because that’s all that matters here, and I noticed neither Bricker nor Stratocaster see anything wrong with what you wrote.
Okay, since you mentioned it: other than self incrimination, what probably cause? I’ve been asking for a couple of pages now, I was hoping you’d know since you just described something you seem to be intimately familiar with.
The scenario you just described is EXACTLY what I’ve been talking about since page 1. Exactly as YOU just described, AZ law enforcement would decide weather (sic) to turn investigation over to ICE based on probable cause.
So other than self incrimination, what probable cause? Oddly enough, when I mentioned this happening, **Bricker **made it very clear that it can’t happen like that. I guess he’s okay with your version of things.
This is exactly what I expect to get caught up in, remember when I mentioned being detained, and someone scoffed at me? You just described a situation where AZ law enforcement would hand over a suspect to ICE. Do you realize that? That’s what opponents of this law expect to have happen–a lot, but not to white people.
This is the part of the law no one wants to talk about.
Does anyone know what happens when a person (either legal or not) is handed over to ICE, with probable cause or not? I know, and it’s not pretty. It is neither quick nor painless.
Frankly, I really hope this law does go through so some fat ass Republican douche bag can get thrown into an ICE detention facility for a couple of days.
I’m not trying to accuse you of anything, but nothing about a US visa is “a breeze.” As I said, immigration officials struggle with immigration issues. Border guards are going to have an even harder time. Arizona police officers are going to have an even harder time than that.
For anyone else still reading: here is the wiki page for US Visas, scroll down then start to familiarize yourself with starting with an A-1 all the way down to WT. Now picture a police officer trying to make sense of that on the side of the highway.
Well, gee, I guess that is a good thing. So why did you bring up a border security check point?
A nice little circle you made. Too bad immigration isn’t part of Arizona law.
How successful. How can you be so sure?
Is your proposal to now require all of Arizona’s police officers to be trained in immigration and border security? I wasn’t aware that was part of this new law.
Yes I was aware, Canada did the same thing. The joys of a post-9/11 world.
That feeling you have is exactly what I’m talking about here. Think back to that feeling. You know you haven’t done anything wrong. You know you have the proper documents. But you still feel like a criminal. All of the questions are designed to make you feel like a criminal.
That’s what I expect from this law, and these kinds of check points.
When you hear people complain about this law, it is because even though they are legal, they expect to be treated like they aren’t.
Does that make sense to you?
I am in the US legally, but I go through hell every time I enter the country, as if I’m not. I go through hell once a year trying to convince the DMV that I am hear legally. I’m about to do it again this week, and in 6 weeks from now I’m going to get a letter telling me that they have fucked up. Every year I get the same letter, telling me that my visa is about to expire and my license will expire at the same time. But my visa hasn’t expired, and they should know that, because I go in once a year to prove it. The DMV can’t handle in 6 weeks what you are expecting a police officer to do on the side of the road.
I would never permit a court to strike down a law simply because the judge doesn’t agree that the law makes the best use of police resources.
I would EXPECT voters to strike down a politician that proposes and passes a bill of such caliber. (and by strike down I mean vote against, nothing violent, just turning a phrase).
I am happily mocking and ridiculing the most garbage piece of legislation since the Patriot Act, in the hopes that sane conservatives are able to distance themselves from the racists ones. I respect conservatives for having a strong stance on immigration, and for pushing to ensure tighter border security. This bill does neither, and I would expect the smarter conservatives to realize that. I guess that’s too much to ask when it’s their ox being gored.
Circle the wagons boys, and obey the 11th commandment.