Well, I’ll take “credit” for throwing out that hypothetical. At least where I live, it’s a well known secret that most of the guys looking for day labor jobs standing outside Home Depot are:
Hispanic
Lacking in English language skills
More likely than not undocumented.
In trying to envision how one would go about enforcing this law, making a sweep of the Home Depots would be a good first step.
I realize that you are trying to keep as open a mind as possible about this law, but I’m really at a loss to understand how it can be enforced without regard to race, ethnicity or national origin. At best, it’s some political red meat to throw to the anti-immigration crowd, and the governor knows damn well it won’t be enforced.
No more so than any other type of encounter with police. It’s up to the officer’s discretion to pull you over (or not) for expired tags. It’s up to the officer’s discretion to pull you over (or not) for 13 mph over the speed limit. And it’s up to the officer’s discretion to pull you over for smoking a big fat doobie in the car.
But laws against driving with expired tags, exceeding the speed limit, and smoking big fat doobies are all constitutionally permissible.
This law doesn’t extend an officer’s discretion in any way.
Yes, in the sense that such contact is not “unlawful.”
But you’re not seriously proposing that this law requires officers to attempt to ascertain the immigration status of anyone they say hello to, are you?
If you are, I begin to see why you believe the law is unworkable.
Also, you never answered my question about US v. Salinas-Calderon, and about what Supreme Court case you were relying on for the proposition that states (or state actors) do not have any jurisdiction to enforce (or investigate) immigration laws.
They’re not required to, and no agenda-less person could describe the statement that way.
But they’re *allowed *to, for any reason they can think of. It’s remarkable that that doesn’t bother you, or perhaps it’s that you pretend it doesn’t for the purpose of argumentation.
I honestly have trouble believing you can’t see the distinction.
What do each of those things above have in common? They are a crime that is visible from the outside.
What does stopping a dude who looks like an illegal alien (that is to say, Hispanic) have to do with that? Being dusky isn’t the same thing as smoking a blunt. One is a crime, the other is not.
OK, that’s fair. In at least two of my three examples, the illegal conduct was immediately apparent.
But let’s focus on the third: the smoking. As you know, undoubtedly from reading about such things on the Internet as opposed to personal experience, a “blunt” is a cheap cigar which has had the tobacco removed and replaced with marijuana. This is done in an effort to disguise the nature of the smokeable, as well as to give a handy method for smoking a larger quantity of weed than can fit in a hand-rolled paper joint.
The upshot is that from a distance, a blunt looks much like the perfectly legal Philly, White Owl, or Swisher Sweet that it was when it started life.
This is, then, perhaps a good analogy for our legal residency question: outwardly, an identical appearance between the legal and the illegal. Yes?
Each of those examples establishes probable cause when the officer observes an activity that can be reasonably concluded to be illegal. What activity could a person engage in that creates probable cause that they are undocumented?
Here’s one. Trooper pulls over a driving for a driving infraction. Driver has no license. Trooper asks if he has a green card or is a U.S. citizen. Driver answers “no.”
So when Fear Itself asked, “What activity could a person engage in that creates probable cause that they are undocumented?” he was just kidding – that wasn’t the real issue?