Yes, you are right and I stand corrected, but I knew that it had been made clear in the final law that a legal stop was required before any immigration status inquiries began.
You should have, if racial profiling was illegal there.
Bricker, you’re not allowed to call other posters liars in this forum. Tell them they’re wrong however you like if you think they are wrong, but leave their motivations out of it.
They are NOT unenforceable. Does that mean you let (for example) terrorists cross borders are set up bombs in public places because it is unenforceable.? I mean…you won’t know the bomb is there usually until it explodes. So…why try and stop them…right.? It is unenforceable.
Another thing…NO…really…I didn’t expect some well-thought out answer from you are anyone else…because …refuting the obvious is impossible.
The judge was and is a Clinton appointee and an activists that completely let the ACLU almost quote her answer.
Like I said…you won nothing. It is not over and will never be over…until November.
I dislike this particular Arizona law for a number of reasons.
However, what is the basis for saying that the Arizona state government has no jurisdiction to pass it?
Right. Sorry.
The statement is false. It’s unequivocally false, and can easily be shown to be completely false, and dozens of prior references to it sfalsity may be found in each of the many threads on this topic.
But I don’t have any idea why he would do such a thing.
I know that compared to the mindnumbed robotic…talking-point responses from the left…the post seems like a speech. But…it isn’t.
Honest question here. If there was a robbery/burglary/jaywalking incident in the area, could the police stop people in the the area to ask if they were in the neighbourhood at the time of the incident. Then class this as a “lawful stop” and ask for the relevant documents? I realise a “stop” may have a more specific definition, I would just like to know what that is.
Recommended by Republican Senator Kyl, and unanimously approved by a Republican controlled Senate.
See “ox,” “gored.”
So if a Latino witness or a victim of a crime reported that crime in the Spanish language, that witness or victim could be questioned about immigration status?
If the answer is No:
Could their immigration status be questioned if they jaywalked in order to report the crime to an officer who was across the street?
And if asked for identification for the criminal report and only a Matricula Card could be produced, could their immigration status be questioned?
Why…do you…keep talking…l…ike…this?
See, there’s still some flaws. It picked up on the word “speech”, but somehow inserted an article in before it. Back to the programming, guys!
You know what that revealed about the true intentions of the legislation, right? :dubious:
Well, maybe not.
The Constitution gives the federal government sole jurisdiction over immigration and nauralization laws. The states do not have jurisdiction to make their own laws regarding immigration and even their power to enforce them is completely at the discretion of the federal government. States cannot “add or subtract” from federal law. This is the basis of the Justice Department lawsuit (which will win easily).
The Supreme Court has already ruled in Hines v. Davidowitz that states cannot require immigrants to carry documentation, so that’s a slam dunk smackdown all by itself.
I’ve never been pulled over for reasonable suspicion. I’ve always been pulled over because a headlight or brake light was out. I always got a fixer ticket.
But two of my sons have been pulled over for reasonable cause. The youngest was pulled over because he was driving a beater car near midnight with two other high school guys in the car. The cops searched the car for drugs. I pity them. His car was a pig pen. No chance of drugs, though. They stood back trying not to look too amused and were finally released with no ticket. So there wasn’t any traffic reason to have pulled them over.
The middle boy, several years later, was visiting the youngest in Colorado. He was pulled over and the car searched for drugs because it was a rental with a California license plate. His girlfriend was pissed because it had taken a lot of planning to get everything to fit in the trunk and they just left everything sitting by the road for them to repack. Also no ticket.
I can see why people are nervous. There are all kinds of reasons to pull someone over.
Is there any practical difference between “lawful contact” and “lawful stop?” I submit that the answer is no. The cops can use virtually any pretense to stop somebody.
Bolding mine. What were the reasonable causes in these situations. Did your sons consent to the searchers?
No. The police could approach people and ask, but not stop them. A stop implicates the Fourth Amendment and requires reasonable, articulable suspicion.
So Arizona is not allowed to enforce federal laws that are being ignored and unenforced due to unpopularity among the current ruling party. Wouldn’t it be a bitch if it Arizona decided to turn around and stop enforcing all state laws that were also covered by federal ones?