If the police are violating the law as it already exists, then what makes you think that passing a very similar law isn’t going to have the same result?
It’s been more than 15 years since I worked in Immigration Court, and I didn’t normally find out whether cases were appealed, let alone whether the appeals were upheld. Honestly, I’d have to poke around.
But even if an appeal were dismissed, that still means the arrestee has been arrested, held, possibly expended large amounts of money on bond and/or attorney fees, and suffered all the consequences that normally come with being arrested, even if the charge is later shown to be unfounded. And the law enforcement and court systems have also expended significant resources that were probably better expended elsewhere, such as, say, arresting people for violent crimes and the like. I think good public policy would involve minimizing the number of baseless arrests, don’t you?
You presented two examples which you admitted were not relevant. This shows that your ideology can trump your law knowledge. Doesn’t it?
I notice you didn’t address this, would you mind?
These are in *this *thread. I’d look elsewhere, but I’m not in the Prove Bricker Can be Blindly Ideological business. Although, I imagine, business would be good.
Sure. But that’s how new law gets made. Ernesto Miranda had to get convicted before we got the caselaw about advising suspects of their right to silence. Once you have the precedent set, future arrestees don’t have to go through all that, because the officer cannot say htat he was using that standard in good faith anymore; he can be sued for false arrest.
If that happens – if wide swaths of people are improperly arrested – I will certainly not be OK with it. But it’s only your speculation that this will happen. As a brown person myself, I am not nearly as worried that this will come to pass.
That I offered an analogy that was refined by further discussion?! As happens during debate every freakin day in GD? THAT is what you relied upon to say, “You’ve been wrong before?”
The first one, with the entire conversational history:
This conversational thread was addressing the claim that officers would be required to ascertain the immigration status of anyone they said hello to. The bill does say “shall,” and not “may.” But it also says says it applies to person with whom the officers come into “lawful contact.” That does not include “saying hello.”
Think about it. Do you, or anyone, seriously believe that this bill mandates that the officer stops for a cup of coffee and hands the cashier a dollar, and now this bill requires he ascertain the clerk’s immigration status? Obviously that’s an absurd and unworkable result, even if you didn’t understand what is meant by “lawful contact.”
That’s sure enough what Wikipedia says… but it’s not what the bill says. Wiki’s footnote for that claim says that Sec 2 of the bill contains that statement. But here is Sec 2:
As you can see, it says nothing of the kind.
If you (or anyone else) believes it does say that a person must prove his lawful residence when asked, why don’t you point out, and quote, the specific section of the law that says that.
Go ahead.
Can’t. You know why? Because it does not. I’m not wrong here, either.
Bricker, if a policeman stops me, what do I have to tell him, provided it is on foot and not in a vehicle? When do I have to tell him my name? Do I need to tell him my DoB or SSN if he asks, or can I politely refuse?
Honestly, what’s to stop them is a lack of a sense that they should be violating the law. That is, this new law is engendering a fair amount of confusion, and it seems highly probable that well-intentioned cops, trying to follow this specific law, will end up violating general laws that protect civil rights. Do you disagree that this is a likely result?
In this interview with the Tucson chief of police, he states that he’s unclear what would constitute reasonable suspicion under this law. He states that this is an unfunded mandate (which isn’t really an issue in this discussion, but which is interesting). He suggests that it’s going to cause some real trouble with policing the Hispanic community.
If he, the chief of police of a major city, has such concerns, I’m pretty suspicious that a beat cop in a small town is going to have them to a greater degree.
I’m not just interested in what the law means de jure; I’m interested in what it means de facto. And if the reality of the law is that it’ll increase civil rights violations, even if it’s explicitly written to avoid them (and to be fair you’ve been pretty persuasive that it’s written in such a manner), I still can’t consider it a good law.
I believe that such considerations may be taken into account when determining the constitutionality of such a measure; consider Brown v. Board, for example.
Another question: could someone explain the last sentence of the quoted section of the ordinance, specifically the word “shall”? I’m not sure how that word is modified by “when practicable” in the previous sentence.
Arizona pols may well know this law will get kicked. But it may just be a cry for help. They may feel very overwhelmed by the problems they have and they may see immigration as the root. It makes it difficult for the federal government to ignore them now. Immigration is a federal problem ,not state or local. But they face the problems on a local and state level.
Not sure if this is what the board was discussing regarding whether it’s a misdemeanor for aliens not to carry their ‘papers,’ but this is what I found out. I admittedly have not read the entire discussion.
Wiki is wrong pertaining to where they cite it’s a misdemeanor, big surprise, but I think it’s still a misdemeanor for an alien to not carry ‘papers’ with them at all times. See Sec. 3 [PDF].
1304(e): Every alien…shall at all times carry with him…alien registration. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor…
State law mimics federal law. SB 1070 Sec 3(H): “A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR…” SB 1070 Sec. 2 states a person is presumed to not be an alien if they present a valid AZ driver’s license. An alien is someone who is not a US citizen/national. The state law can be enforced by properly trained State law enforcement officers.
As far as what amounts to reasonable suspicion of violating this law, I have no idea. Get them on reasonable suspicion of other crimes I would imagine (traffic violations, loitering, ect.).
I think that the flaws found in wording, etc. underscores the possibility that this is nothing but a bit of political theater, with no actual intent to create enforceable law. Of course, I cannot peer into the minds of those who made this monstrosity, nor would I if I could, but that’s what I’m seeing here.
I don’t think that is the case. I think its creators want to call prominent attention to the massive failure of the US government to secure the border. They are succeeding quite nicely with that.
I also think it’s going to boil down to a 10th Amendment issue. Arizona, I think, has a valid claim that the US government has abdicated one of its duties - border security - and as such, it then falls to the states, via the 10th, to pick up the slack.
