Perhaps you could clarify the difference between the two? My understanding (at least from a Commonwealth perspective) is that “Civil Law” refers to things like torts and defamation actions, and “Criminal Law” deals with things that are against the law- such as overstaying your tourist visa.
You’re right, but “civil” may also refer to administrative violations. If you don’t secure a permit before building your garden shed, for example, you may run afoul of an ordinance requiring you to have done just that. Civil penalties are monetary, never confinement. A civil penalty is not supposed to be punitive, either, but reasonably related to the costs incurred by the government in enforcing the regulations at issue.
:: nitpick :: I believe you mean legal permanent resident in this instance. There are many kinds of legal US residents who do not have green cards.
I’m not sure if this has been mentioned in the last 300 posts but I heard something disturbing the other day about this law that I wanted clarification on. Specifically, provisions in the law allows a person to actually sue a cop, the officer specifically and not simply the police department, if the cop misses an illegal immigrant?
Right you are.
No. In fact, precisely to the contrary. The law says:
And that’s consistent with the general idea of qualified immunity, which protects all officers form liability in the exercise of their duties, unless that act with deliberate bad faith.
Does the law require US citizens to provide proof of citizenship when asked by law enforcement?
No.
Wait a minute, what? If you are a citizen, you don’t have to prove it, you only have to prove it if you are not? Sure glad Mom talked me out of law school, it is no place for a country boy!
(And long last, Bricker gets to defend a hyper-conservative action strictly and solely on the basis of technical legality, leaving aside questions of justice and wisdom. See? You don’t have to actually die to go to Heaven!..)
So what will happen if an undocumented person lies, and says, “I am a US citizen, I don’t have to carry papers proving it!”
In Arizona, it will be a state misdemeanor not to be able to. Or to refuse to, which amounts to the same thing.
Happy to talk about justice and wisdom. But we’ll end up agreeing to disagree, because there is no reference on justice and wisdom that we both recognize as authoritative.
I don’t believe the principals of justice or wisdom are flouted by saying that national borders mean something, and people in one nation are justified in denying unfettered entry into their country to people from another country. Indeed, one of the most fervent proponents of this view is the Mexican government, at least insofar as their border to the south is concerned. It’s well-nigh impossible for Central Americans to legally enter and live in Mexico,
OK, again, I don’t get it. Its a misdemeanor for a US citizen not to be able to, or refuse to? That can’t be right, can it?
I’ve been away for a bit and skimmed the thread, so let me sum up my understanding:
In AZ a cop can demand to see proof of citizenship from anyone he “Reasonably Suspects” is here illegally.
And Bricker is still arguing that this is cool, because just being Hispanic isn’t reasonable suspicion. What is then?
[quote=“Bricker, post:312, topic:537220”]
…I don’t believe the principals of justice or wisdom are flouted by saying that national borders mean something, and people in one nation are justified in denying unfettered entry into their country to people from another country. …QUOTE]
Well, gosh, when you put it that way, well, of course. So long as you put it that way. Otherwise, how are we going to stop all those Canadians flooding over our borders to get our health care and our women?
Assuming there is no reasonable suspicion otherwise… nothing.
Seriously. Read through the entire law. Point to the text that says otherwise. It’s not there; it doesn’t exist. The law imposes a duty for every police officer to make a reasonable effort to ascertain the immigration status of persons he comes in contact with. It doesn’t grant him any additional powers; it doesn’t impose a duty on anyone to carry proof of citizenship.
Could the police haul you off to jail for refusing to answer? Not without breaking the law themselves.
Again – if the police already have a valid basis for detaining you, they may require that you provide your name. They can check that name against databases they have, and act on that information. They can always saunter up to you and start asking questions, based on no suspicion at all. But they can’t compel you to talk to them.
You seem disbelieving. But what you’re not doing – nor is anyone in the thread – is actually quoting a section of the law that you believe will authorize any of these abuses.
No, he can’t “demand” it. He can investigate. If he has reasonable suspicion, the most he can “demand” is your name. The law requires you to truthfully disclose your name.
Reasonable suspicion would be, as I have said before, being asked if you’re a citizen or a permanent resident, saying you’re a permanent resident, and then failing to present a green card.
So you’re saying that if hypothetical Mexican says “I’m a citizen.” the cop has to walk away?
Bonus Question: Do you have a problem with cops being forced (by the ability to sue their city government) to ask every Mexican looking person on the street if they’re a citizen?
Fun Fact: The law was introduced by a guy who hangs with Neo Nazis, Russell Pearche. Pearce evidentially got content from FAIR, a racist organization that sues people for immigration stuff, and oddly enough, there is included in the law the ability to sue people for immigration stuff if you think that the government isn’t being harsh enough on the brown folks.
Warning: Hippy liberal website: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/27/4210613-racist-roots-of-arizonas-immigration-law
Yes.
That’s not what the law says they have to do.
What if the officer still has a reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States. Doesn’t that mean that he has to make a reasonable attempt, when practicable to determine the immigration status of the person? Doesn’t that include asking for ID?
Also, I humbly suggest that you have had few dealings with cops if you think that all of them will let you walk away from them.
The law does permit citizens to sue their governments if they don’t follow this law. What do you think will happen in police stations in those cities?
Do you think that pressures will come down to police chiefs to be more or less vigilant in questioning?
Do you think that police will err on the side of more questions or less questions?