Because your idea about what priorities should be for police is not the same as the citizens of Arizona’s idea. You may be believe that finding and removing illegal aliens is of lower priority than getting your DMV work processed. But that view isn’t shared by Arizona.
Why you believe that your view should control instead of Arizona’s, on the issue of Arizona law, is not clear to me.
Gee, what were my two issues? How would they have reasonable suspicion, and what to do about people with some for a visa that are in flux.
You included them in that group without mentioning it, did you?
But that’s not accurate. We can imagine a guy who is not on ICE’s radar at all, sneaks across the border, gets caught driving in Phoenix, and then admits he’s an illegal alien. The first time. Before ever being deported and returning.
What about that group?
You listed groups in your effort to show how useless the law was, but you failed to mention the single group that will likely be the biggest source of deportees: first-time catches that incriminate themselves.
Of course, I know why you didn’t mention them, as does every reader of this thread. It hurts your case. It hurts the impression you are trying to sell that the law is useless, and it apparently hurts your brain to even imagine such people.
It’s kind of like when Child Services steps in and removes a child from negligent parents. In this case, the people of Arizona failed. Like I said, all they had to do was check with me. I could have told them all the pitfalls that article describe, and about a dozen others.
So instead of dealing with real issues, or real solutions, Arizona lawmakers have been dicking around with this bit of mastabatory legislation.
Sure. And the answers are obvious.
That statement, alone, does not give rise to reasonable suspicion, because it’s not clear that the person is claiming to be a citizen or legal resident.
The officer would be entitled to ask, “When you say you’re here legally, do you mean you’re a US citizen? Or are you a legal resident?”
If the person answers that he’s a legal resident, then the officer may detain him further, because the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person violated federal law 18 USC § 1304(e).
Legomsky is using the fact that Cuccinelli’s opinion doesn’t go into that level of detail to throw mud in the works. As a law professor, is he surely aware of the basic rules concerning detention and investigation. Notice he doesn’t say that there’s no possible answer; he simply says that from Cuccinelli’s opinion, “it’s not clear.” And that’s true. Cuccinelli’s opinion is not a training manual, and doesn’t contain that answer.
Fine. But that’s the bottom line: it’s your opinion vs. the opinion of the people of Arizona. Guess which one actually gets laws passed?
First of all, let’s be honest here, we’re on page 10, there are no other readers.
So is now the time to point out all of the things you didn’t bother to mention? Or would that just be petty.
Basically, what you’re saying is that a guy that just paid several thousand dollars to sneak into the country, who also knows nothing at all about US law or legal processes, who is fleeing a country in part because of the legal system, isn’t going to bother considering what to do if he gets pulled over?
And someone that snuck in over a decade ago, has been surviving without deportation, isn’t going to bother being prepared for this?
If all it takes is asking people to confess, shouldn’t the whole process be even easier? I guess the real question is why Home Land Security isn’t doing this already. Since it’s so easy.
Well, good for them, they got a law passed. Too bad a judge blocked most of it. Not sure if you saw this or not:
Now the 1st amendment gives me the right to mock them relentlessly. They opted for a popular bill, instead of a logical bill. Or a reasonable bill. Or a slightly less stupid bill. Like you said, they went with the Aaron Spelling version of legislation.
Damn, maybe we should just have cops ask everyone they talk to if they’re carrying illegal drugs. Or cheated on their taxes. I mean, if hordes of people will simply own up to the commission of a crime because they get asked, why isn’t law enforcement doing more of this?
Wait a second Bricker, let’s go with what you claim: this law will net all of the returners because they’re in the ICE system–who will get sent to ICE for further processing.
And it will net all of the undocumented newly arrivals because they will confess–who will get sent to ICE for further processing.
For now we can ignore all of the overstays that will also get sent to ICE, and all of the legals that are in flux, and the citizens that get fucked over.
All this law has done is dump a shit ton of suspected deportees on ICE, who was already over worked an unable to perform the original task. They’ll get deported, and be back in a week.
Like I said earlier, if AZ officers have all this free time, and AZ lawmakers have all this free time, and AZ citizens have all this desire to solve illegal immigration, why didn’t they just help out ICE in the first place?
Why not provide state funding and man power to Border Agents to help them do their job? Instead of making their job harder.
Umm … because federal agency funding and manning are the responsibility of the federal government?
And Arizona is helping the federal government by directing state law enforcement officials (manpower) to enforce a state law which will assist the federal government to enforce federal rules, regulations and laws.
An Arizonian, I remember when DHS Secretary Napolitano would send letters to DHS asking them to enforce the federal rules, regulations and laws, as well as asking for reimbursement for money that Arizona had spent because the federal government was not doing its job.
I have no problem with Arizona law enforcement officials doing something any individual can do: How can I report illegal aliens?.
Exactly. So wouldn’t the polite thing be to *offer *assistance and funding? This is the state equivalent of throwing a hissy fit.
Even after all these illegals are wrapped up in a bow and dumped on ICE’s doorstep, what is ICE supposed to do with them?
They are understaffed, underfunded, and as such unable to deal with the batch of illegals they’ve already caught. Which traditionally means the illegals get released pending deportation hearings.
So like I said, if AZ officers have all this time and money, why not ask ICE and Border Security (and USCIS) was would help the most?
Did the federal government ask for that help? Is that the help they actually need?
I joked about helping USCIS process visas, but the length of time it takes is part of the reason people sneak into the country. There is a near universal sentiment that they just can’t be had, because the processing time is so long. You could paying thousands of dollars and submit the paperwork, then wait 5 years. Or you could just walk across the desert. Reducing the processing would at least give the impression that a legal process is their to follow.
The US government set up something like that in Afghanistan so that concerned citizens could report terrorists. Turns out it was overwhelmingly popular with warlords what wanted to get rid of a rival warlord. I sure hope you never piss off your neighbour.
Apparently there are other readers.
No, please go ahead. I’ve tried to be as factual and clear as i can here. I have, for example, repeatedly concede that the federal preemption argument is a tenable one, and I have pointed out where that applies. Of course I have an opinion, but I’m doing my best to discuss the issue factually, and not hide any fact or circumstance that would tend to negate my view that, overall, the law is a workable one.
No, that’s not “basically,” what I said. In post 388, I expressly disavowed that idea when I said:
He may well consider what he’ll do when he’s pulled over. But, much like his brethern who smuggle contraband or are felons in possession of firearms, he will get snagged by police who are trained in just how to elicit incriminating actions.
Did you read post 388 back when I posted it?
Do you see that your summary here isn’t at all what I said in it?
Do you feel your summary was a fair one?
Because you characterize it as “asking people to confess,” which is not a fair summary of the process.
I’m reminded of a Calvin and Hobbes strip, where Calvin walks to the end of a fishing pier with an empty bucket. He holds it out over the water and yells, “Here, fish!” After a pause in which nothing happens, he mutters to himself, “Rats. They must know that trick already.”
And it pains me to point out that despite your prior agreement that police net many, many arrests of drug smugglers and gun holders with these techniques (and you did agree with that, yes?) you seem to forget that agreement now. Because it contradicts your unstated premise here that “All it takes is asking people to confess,” doesn’t it?
If all the police are doing with the drug transporters is “asking them to confess,” how do you explain their great success rate?
And the guy thta just paid several thousand dollars for the cocaine in his trunk, or for the Mac-10s in the back seat – is he in any less of a pickle? Indeed, having grown up here, theoretically he should know MORE about the legal system.
How come “asking him to confess” is working out so well?
I am trying to get to the point where you either concede this part of your argument, or support it. I have tried many times over the course of this thread to kill it, and it seems as though you concede, only to have it rise again, a rhetorical version of the undead.
So one more time:
Do you understand that police make many, many arrests every day based on consent searches, where the person giving the consent knows they have contraband, and absent consent the police would have no case whatsoever?
If you do, then can you either explain why the similar tactic won’t work in the case of illegal immigrants, or stop pretending that it won’t? Please?
Law enforcement does it all the time.
In fact, it starts just as you simplistically imagine:
“Say, you’re not carrying any illegal drugs back there in the trunk, are you?”
“No, officer.”
“Great! Then you don’t mind if I take a look.”
See how that works? The “correct” answer, the one that knows the Fourth Amendment, is some variant of, “I don’t consent to a search.”
But police know that they’ve done two things. First of all, notice how now, “no,” means “yes.”
“No, I don’t mind,” means “Yes, you can search.” And notice too, how they’ve subtly shifted the burden to you. It’s easy to answer “Do you consent to a search?” with, “No.”
But they don’t ask that. They say, “Then, considering you just told me you have no drugs back there, you don’t mind if I look, do you?” If I say I mind, it’ll be like admitting I have the drugs! I can’t say I mind!
It’s not “asking people to confess.” It’s a very well-planned exercise that police get trained to do, with full knowledge of the precise limits of the Fourth Amendment and case law and practice every week of their careers… and which citizens don’t get trained in and don’t get to practice.
Of course I know the law is blocked.
Please note that the REASON the judge blocked the law is of interest. She didn’t find that it won’t work. She didn’t find that there are better uses of police resources. She didn’t find that it will violate the rights of citizens or those of illegal aliens.
She determined that it conflicted with the federal government’s sole authority to make immigration law, an area I have repeatedly identified as being a tenable complaint against this law. I don’t agree with her preemption analysis, but it’s a reasonable position for her to take… and, of course, my own opinion is not worth as much as hers, inasmuch as she’s on the federal bench and I’m still waiting for my call from President Obama.
Well… mock away, but it sure doesn’t sound like you’re mocking for a factual reason. The “Aaron Spelling” complaint doesn’t seem to map too well to the judge’s actual reasoning. The judge didn’t block the bill because it was illogical, or popular, or unreasonable. She didn’t adopt any of the arguments you’ve proffered here. She just said that Arizona can’t make laws that affect immigration policy; only the federal government can do that.
Obviously, that’s an issue that must be fully and finally decided by an authoority greater than a single federal district court judge, but for the moment, she gets to make the temporary call.
There’s an old joke about two hikers in the woods who see an angry bear ahead. The bear spots them and begins chasing them, and one hiker stops and puts on running shoes.
“What are you doing?” yells the other. “Even with running shoes, you can’t outrun a bear!”
“I don’t need to outrun the bear,” replies the first. “I just have to outrun you.”
Perhaps, when they come back in a week, they’ll cross into Texas or California. Because Arizona has become too much of a pain to deal with.
And that’s Arizona’s idea. Like the hiker, Arizona doesn’t need to solve the problem completely – just make itself a less desirable target than other border states.
So do you have some numbers to back up your assertions that this process net lots and lots and lots, perhaps the vast majority,of arrests, as you have asserted? I mean, can you show us a cite for the number of people that are convicted based on self-incriminating statements made to police?
I mean, I believe it happens, but you’ve now made some claims that frankly, I’m dubious about. You’ve laid out the scenario of training such that an officer will win that scenario 99% of the time if not more, and claim that LEOs have “great success” with these tactics, so are there some numbers to back that up?
Apart from my own experience as a public defender?
There are a number of posters here with criminal law experience. I have no doubt that any one of them could confirm that this is an event that happens with great frequency.
Here’s a cite from the ACLU of Texas. They highlight the example of Austin, which began requiring its officers to use written consent forms, and not just get a verbal “OK.”
They don’t supply raw numbers, but that supports my position quite well: when robbed of the sneaky consent tool, consent searches decreased by 63 percent. That’s in one city.
So far as I can tell, police don’t keep these statistics. I can’t find any nationwide numbers.
I can find numerous blog links that repeat the same things I’ve said:
Sound familiar?
Okay, so we know that refusals to allow searches increased by over 60% once citizens knew that they could, in fact, refuse the search. My question was about arrests and convictions, tho. So that link and information isn’t really helpful.
Your other link is to a primer on how to deal with police, but doesn’t mention anything about numbers of arrests or convictions based on voluntary self-incriminating statements.
So we don’t have any concrete numbers, just anecdotal evidence that the situation you describe does happen, but all I can tell is that it does happen more than “never” but less frequently than “always”.
So the number of criminals caught and convicted this way is…?
You can’t tell us how often this approach is successful, but we should just trust you that it’s a lot, and this is the best use of manpower to achieve the objective of curtailing or halting illegal immigration?
That’s quite the argument you’re putting forth for this tactic, Bricker.
Yes.
No.
But then, I never saidthat.