Serious question: what standing would an illegal immigrant have to challenge the law in court? If they have full standing (I may be using the phrase wrong; I freely admit my total amateur status here), then there’s no problem; but if they lack some of the rights of a full citizen, then challenging this law could prove difficult.
This gets back to the meta-conversation I keep having with you. I don’t see this messageboard as a courtroom. I see it mostly as a place to shoot the shit, with a very small addendum as a place to try to change public opinion. TO the extent that I argue against this law here, it’s not to foment violent insurrection against the government; it’s to try to change people’s minds about the law as a very small part of the effort to undermine and destroy precisely the public support that you correctly point at.
And doing so is absolutely part of being a representative democratic republic.
FWIW, I agree with tim about the quality of your legal analysis, and I very much appreciate it; I think Elvis’s response to me demonstrates what I said before about my not finding it productive to argue with some of the weak-sauce sources that are arguing against you. (I’ll point out Eva Luna as one of the strong-sauce debaters against you). You can probably assume that if someone looks like extra weak sauce to you, they look like it to most other folks as well, but the rest of us don’t see much percentage in attracting a dollop of irrational venom from them.
Just for the record, I am extremely skeptical of this number. And I mean beyond my natural skepticism of statistics since taking that course in college. I know anecdotal evidence can be very misleading, but frankly I’ve been shocked not just at how many but of who, among people I know and encounter, are against this law. I know a lot more conservatives/Republicans than I do liberals/Democrats, and almost everyone I know is against this.
A figure that should make anyone :dubious: at this 70% number is that less than 60% of our state’s population is non-hispanic white. I’m not saying that alone means anything concrete, but it should give you pause to ponder.
I’d like to see the methods of whoever reached 70%.
I was surprised to hear Michael Medved railing against this law on the radio today. More than anything he just thought it was stupid politics. Alienating Hispanic voters is a stunningly counterproductive thing for Republicans to do anymore. The protests against this are going to dwarf the teabagger rallies. the Republicans are really kicking themselves in the balls with this, and are suddenly motivating a lot of midterm voters who they were counting on to be disinterested in november.
The 70% number is from Rasmussen . . . Nate Silver of FiveThiryEight.com gives the wording they used in this post, in which he argues that Rasmussen’s wording was overly favorable to the law.
Yes, Bricker, even though your politics are evident, you have remained calm, factual and helpful.
What I was goggled by is the protests from the Mexican government, who treat their illegal aliens hwaaay worse than we do, and you always have needed to “show your papers” there.:eek: I mean, talk about people in glass houses living in the middle of a rock quarry.
90% of illegals will panic and run, thus giving the police a perfect rights to stop them. Few will attempt to brazen it out by claiming to be a natural born citizen. That’s just the reality, folks.
My Bro worked for the IRS, and several times he clearly out facilities by announcing “IRS!”, then had to say “No, IRS dammit, not INS, IRS!”.
Note that Az has made it illegal to hire illegals aliens a couple years ago.
This is a fairly silly law, but I think the idea is to get the Feds to pay some attention to the problem, a problem that is a huge financial burden for a fairly small state.
Except it is not true. You are defining what they can do now. This law would be no change at all if you were correct. Now the citizens can sue the police if they think they are not aggressive enough at confronting suspicious aliens. With civilians involved, it will go to the lowest denominator. Police will have to stretch to placate the people. In real life, this will result in dark skinned people being rousted .
The lawsuits alone could overload the courts.There were 2 today.
But if the aim is to jump all over suspicious aliens on election day, like a lot of sites suggest, then it is ugly indeed. The gov. was involved in that before.
A generic illegal alien would have no standing at all… but then, neither would you. An illegal alien that had actually been stopped by police in accord with this law would have standing to challenge it. As would you. In other words, the illegal alien labors under no penalty; he has as much right as anyone to challenge the law.
That’s fine… but I don’t argue with people that say, “This is a bad law.” I argue with people who say, “This is an illegal law,” or “This law should be overturned.”
I’ll try to keep that in mind. Thanks very much for saying it.
You asked for an example of reasonable suspicion. I gave you one.
And your rebuttal is “It is not true.”
Um… why not?
This law makes no change in the reasonable suspicion area of Terry-type stops. So, in a sense, that’s true. But it does change some very important things: it mandates the iqnuiry into immigration status for any Terry stops; before, that inquiry was up to the officer. It says that any person present in the country ilegally is by definition trespassing if they are in Arizona. And it provides citizens the right to sue police departments if any department adopts a policy that conflicts with the law.
But in the area of analyzing reasonable suspicion, it makes no changes.
On reflection, let me revise this. I believe an illegal alien would have standing to challenge the law even if he isn’t stopped. He can say, in effect, “I am afraid to walk around because of this law,” and he would have standing. You would not. So we have the interesting result that an illegal alien would have more chance to challenge the law than a citizen would.
Yes, you answered it, and you contradicted yourself:
In one example, you said a person didn’t need to answer a police officer, at which point elucidator said he wouldn’t have the sand to do that.
In another example, involving two people being questioned, one of them doesn’t answer, at all. He turns and walks away. You then say, at that point, that the officer now has his reasonable suspicion.
So, back to the question: what turns that from a voluntary, consensual encounter into a detention? You will notice, in that 2nd example, that all of the questioning involved immigration status; nothing else was asked:
Now, what are the specific, articulable facts that cop has in his possession to make that encounter a detention, other than that Suspect 2 says nothing, an action which, according to you, means the cop can’t do a thing.
Obviously, not a thing, other than that Suspect 1 used Spanish, and Suspect 2 is therefore suspected of being…Hispanic.
I don’t know if you did this deliberately, but it highlights this sentence: WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES…
In your examples, you state:
1 - If a person is a citizen, and states so, that’s as far as it goes, but also…
2 - Once the cop has the name of the person, they can investigate further into his status.
Now, 2 can only happen upon reasonable suspicion. But if 1 happens, there is no reasonable suspicion, according to you, or at least that’s what you seem to be saying. To me, that’s a direct contradiction. If someone is stopped for driving drunk, the cop is not going to take the word of the detainee that he’s not. If someone is stopped for driving drunk, and then asked if he’s a citizen, and states that he is, you seem to be saying that’s where the inquiry stops, as far as immigration status goes, and in this case the cop does indeed take his word for it.
But the law says “where reasonable suspicion exists”, and elsewhere in this thread you state categorically that the police are required, now, to look into the status of everyone they stop:
But that’s not what the law says. The law says “where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien”. The police can be sued for not investigating those cases where there was a reasonable suspicion that the person was illegally here, by extension. So, cops don’t have to check everyone; they only have to check those who they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe are here illegally.
So, are
1 - the cops taking the word of our drunk driver, or
2 - are they checking his status?
3 - If so, what is the basis of their “reasonable suspicion”, since the law states they have to have such to check on his status, and he stated he’s a citizen? Such “reasonable suspicion”, note, would have to relate to his immigration status, NOT to his drunk driving. Why? Because the law says “where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien”.
So, back to the question: what are the specific, articulable facts our cop can present to state that he was required by that law to check this drunk driver’s immigration status? Very specifically, is he in violation if he runs that check after our driver states categorically that he’s a citizen?
Which gets us even more specifically to that wacko Sheriff of some county or other that keeps cropping up: if he says he’ll detain someone on some other charge, and then checks his status, and then tries to say that his suspicion was based on the thing he detained the person for, such as drunk driving, is he in violation of the law as stated, since obviously drunk driving has nothing to do with the person’s immigration status?
While I’m hardly as sanguine as Bricker about the effect of the Arizona law upon U.S. citizens, the checking of the immigration status of a person who is detained for another crime, such as drunk driving, is and has been SOP, and not only in Arizona.
I, for one, have no problem with that. My objection to the law lies on a different prong – its effect upon U.S. citizens.
No. I said at that point the encounter is no longer consensual.
The moment your liberty is interrupted – the moment the officer says that you can’t go – the encounter is no longer consensual.
In the example where the man walks away, and the officer says to stop, that was not an example of a lawful seizure.
Here the post in which I laid out the scenario. I clearly specified that I was giving an example of a detention without supporting reasonable, articulable suspicion. I have emphasized those words in bold red to draw your attention to them in this complete quote:
If someone is stopped for driving drunk, the officer already has reasonable suspicion: he can point to the weaving, the speeding, the lack of headlights at night… whatever caused him to initiate the traffic stop.
And if he doesn’t have specific, articulable facts to justify the traffic stop, then the stop, and any evidence adduced during it, will all be inadmissible.
Unless the cop can point to some other permissible indicia that he’s not a citizen, then, yes… that’s where the inquiry stops.
Correct, they are only obligated to check persons for which there is reasonable suspicion.
Nothing in the law prevents the cop from asking, during the drunk driving traffic stop, if the person is a citizen. This is permissible for the same reason that the cop can ask him if he has any drugs in the back seat or a rocket launcher in the trunk. He doesn’t need reasonable suspicion to ask such questions, as along as they do not prolong the original detention.
So the cops ask ou drunk driver if he’s a citizen or a legal resident. If he says he’s a citizen, and there is no other indicia of that not being true, then the inquiry must end there. Notice this is NOT the inquiry that happens under “reasonable suspicion,” but rather the consensual inquiry that occurs during the drunk driving stop.
I can think of a few things. Obviously, if our drivers says he’s a legal resident, then the cop is allowed to ask for his green card. Not having one would be reasonable suspicion – in fact, it would be probable cause.
If he says he’s a citizen but doesn’t have a driver’s license, then the cop is entitled to ask him for name, date of birth, and SSN. He is allowed, as part of the drunk driving detention, to run that information. If the name on the SSN doesn’t match the name given by the driver, THAT would be reasonable suspicion, since illegal aliens often “borrow” SSNs to use since they don’t have one.
If Arizona keeps track of citizenship in its license database, then the results of the license check my show that the driver isn’t a citizen, and his flase claim that he was would be reasonable suspicion.
Those are some examples.
Here’s the rule: the detention must be not be extended. This is not a new area of lthe law. For example, if you’re pulled over for speeding, the cops can, while they’re writing you a ticket, ask you if you have any drugs in the car. They can ask to search the car. If you refuse, they can bring a drug dog in to sniff the car’s exterior. But all of this cannot materially extend the time you’re detained for the speeding. So during the normal time it would take to issue a speeding ticket, the cops can investigate anything else they please.
Same rule here. If you’re pulled over for drunk driving, the cops may detain you long enough to do the FSTs and confirm, or dispel, the notiont hat you’re impaired. During that time, they may legally investigate any other thing they please.
This has long been the state of the law. It’s nothing new.
I just don’t understand the “only” in front of the 15th. I mean, that’s outta 50.
I mean, come on buddy . . . we obviously have [del]an inferiority complex[/del] a lot of state pride, because we’re [del]fairly small[/del] completely fucking awesome . . . err, used to be . . . :(.
Sorry, I meant in comparison with CA (and TX),:smack: which has more illegal aliens, but a much larger budget, etc in which to absorb the costs and burden. AZ is not small in comparison to most other states, but CA (and TX) does kinda loom in comparison, eh?
Frank does make a good point about the AC, though…
I see no reason why an Az cop is any less/more of a human than any other State, right? An Az cop will likely act as any other cop would - otherwise, Az has a different species of Law Enforcement critter.
I have plenty of experiences (from former friendships/conversations in at least four States) that Officers are encouraged to spice the reports up extensively, and are often rewarded for being able to do so better than average. No written cites, but LOTS of personal face-time with cops who brag about their power to do so (and brag about having done so as well - repeatedly). I have not had such ‘exposure’ in around 10 years due to my disgust, but seems little has changed for the better. I could be wrong, of course. This attitude of mine did not occur overnight, or from my relatives only. Too many cops have admitted to me (privately, of course) just how frequently they lie or cheat in order to fulfill their expected job performance.
Were you aware that in Williamson County, TX, there were/are more than a few Deputies that would (in early 2000’s) pull a car over that had a Grateful Dead bumper sticker? No other reason needed, no matter what the law says. Its obvious there are drugs on-board! That is reality. Legal or not.
Why would anywhere else, such as Az, be any different? All the Officers I have known, every single one, state this is what they will do when they want/need to, and are encouraged to do by their brethren. There’s a reason for that infamous ‘blue wall’
And of course those Officers existed prior to the (new) law. Rogue is your (wrong) word, not mine. I say it is pretty much ‘routine’, not rogue. Based on a large number of examples I could give from other similar persons in other jurisdictions. They have just been handed a new tool with which to further stretch ‘reasonable cause’, which is something that happens routinely. Per multiple Officers of multiple States/jurisdictions who have told me so in confidence.
I totally respect cops that honor the spirit of the law. They just seem very difficult to find. I have not found very many amongst the dozens of 'em that have known beyond a mere ‘hello’. So why would Az be any different? That is all I am saying - the ‘reasonable cause’ thing is a joke amongst all the cops I have known. But there are certainly cops who are 100% honest. Somewhere, LOL.
That is absolutely the problem that Bricker and a few others here who would prefer to argue the dry letter of the law in a hermetically sealed environment, unrelated to the reality on the street, just like they did in law school, are creating here. In reality things are going to work just like you say, Ionizer*. The principle of equal protection, and arguably due process as well, are going to be violated savagely, as was obviously the very purpose of this legislation, and the letter-of-the-law-only parsers show no concern or even awareness of that. It’s amazing to those of us not afflicted with that mindset, who can still recognize that the law and justice are not synonyms. There is no real question that a technical argument can be made to support every word in this bill, as Bricker has patiently if obsessive-mindedly shown here in the service of his party’s chosen position, although refusing to acknowledge that good arguments can be made to the contrary as well. Fuirther, those arguments have justice behind them, which is something that courts can and must consider as well, no matter how miffed the dangerous technocratic mindset may find that. LHOD, If you’ll recall, I responded to you in the same spirit in which you had just addressed me. :dubious: Now drop the butthurt act and start contributing some actual content here, okay?
