No, I think the Court signaled pretty clearly that that kind of detention to check immigration status would be a deal-breaker.
It’s the clause with “ACHTUNG!” in bold print.
Yes, that’s the one. Upheld (until evidence in practice shows problems) by a unanimous court (well, eight members, with the ninth abstaining from the case). They all said achtung.
For fucking crying out loud, this was a unanimous decision of the court (with Kagan recused) about the so-called “show me your papers” provision. If you think Justice Ginsberg is a Nazi, just come out and say so.
“Your papers are in order. Why are your papers in order?”
You see, John, sarcasm is related to humor rather like buttsecks is related to actual sex. There is not necessarily a statement of actual belief, not does it support any wildly unfounded suggestions of actual belief. After you’ve been here a while, you may very well get used to that. Or not.
I meant that the “show me your papers law”, being Naziesque in nature, would appropriately have Achtung! at the top. I would not demean Justice Ginsberg.
So… it’s a post designed to get a reaction, but not containing any actual belief on the part of the poster?
But Justice Ginsberg upheld the law. How do you reconcile those two statements?
Is “Naziesque” one of those words that lets you call someone a Nazi but then have plausible deniability afterwards? Seriously, if you think this law s anything like what the Nazis did, lay out your case.
The only difference between this policy and the state of affairs nationwide is the mandatory bit. But I’m not sure that really changes much in practice, since it is still up to the individual officer to assess reasonable suspicion.
The only legal problem I have with that system is as-applied. What sometimes happens in practice is that neither the officer nor INS takes direct responsibility for establishing probable cause. So you get cases like Ernesto Galarza, a native U.S. citizen with a social security card and other proof of citizenship on him, kept on an immigration detainer for 72 hours because he was (wrongly) arrested along with some people who were potentially illegal immigrants. Both the police officer and INS point fingers at each other, saying the other should have been the one to establish probable cause for the detainer. Technically, it is INS’s responsibility. But if the cop doesn’t happen to mention that this guy speaks native English and has several official government forms of proof of citizenship, then whose fault is it really?
I think you’re conflating two different periods (but correct me if I’m wrong). I think the Court was talking about the period the police could detain someone before learning from INS what INS wants to do. **elucidator **is talking about the period that INS can request that you be detained while they investigate your immigration status.
When I do it, its liberal hypocrisy, when you do it, its a Socratic dialogue.
So, what would happen if a factually illegal alien is stopped, and when asked about his immigration status, relies, “I am a US citizen.” ?
Can he be detained? Since US citizens are not required to carry documentation of their immigration status, does the inquiry stop there?
Under the ruling, even if a state policeman has probable cause to believe an individual is an illegal immigrant, he may not make an arrest on that basis. Thus, your encounter comes to an end even if the immigrant replies, “I overstayed my visa, what’s it to 'ya?”
The officer is free to call INS, but not detain the immigrant. The officer is also free to make an arrest (jaywalking?), detain for a reasonable period while INS processes the request, and follow an INS 48-hour detainer if it is issued.
Or what about the opposite…if I, as a US citizen, decide to do some Freedom Rider-style activity, go to Arizona, carry no papers, and tell an officer (if asked) that I’m NOT a US citizen (a la the friends of Spartacus) – or, just refuse to answer – can the cop detain me while he contacts the feds? Sure looks that way.
I know you’re supposed to answer cops’ questions fully and honestly for most things, but this has been essentially declared beyond their purview, so does that change things?
Maybe. But per this very decision, that’s a federal prerogative, isn’t it? In other words, how the INS acts once it gets its paws on you may or may not be reasonable, but it’s clearly their bailiwick.
When you do it, it might not be liberal hypocrisy either. I have no idea what you’re saying half the time anyway, so I choose to treat your words as literal claims, respond to them as such, and then see where that takes us. I treated BobLibDem the same way with his “Achtung” claim, asking how he reconciled it with the fact that Justice Ginsburg approved the measure.
And treating me the same way is just fine.
No, for the reasons given above.
Yes, I agree. I guess my qualms about 2(B) are more about the policy implications than constitutional ones, and specifically the need to set it up so that the INS takes responsibility for assessing probable cause.
I’d repeat what I said in the interminable SB1070 threads: most probably yes, although the officer can check while he’s completing the detention for the primary offense… writing the ticket for speeding, for example.
But also as I pointed out in those threads, similar protections go unused all the time. “Can I search your car?” is asked in some form all the time, and all the suspect has to do to end that inquiry is answer in the negative… but many don’t.
(Of course, as I laid out in detail in those threads, it’s a but more subtle than that; police are trained to elicit consent by the way they ask their questions: “Say, you don’t have any machine guns, grenades, anti-tank weapons back there, anything I should be worried about, do you? … No? Mind if I take a quick look just for my safety?”)
Just to sum up:
If a cop stops someone, or otherwise detains him, for some reason other than immigration status – e.g., speeding, jaywalking, or murder – they can call INS to verify his immigration status. It is an open question how long they can keep him *on that basis *before hearing back from INS about what to do. But the Supreme Court made clear that it isn’t very long.
If INS responds that the person is an illegal immigrant, but INS isn’t interested, then the police can’t hold him for the immigration issue. If the INS responds that the person is an illegal immigrant, and requests that he be detained, then the police can choose to follow that request and detain him for 48 hours (or not, if they don’t want, since the feds cannot force local police to do their dirty work).
In no event can the police initially stop or otherwise detain someone solely for suspicion of an immigration violation. That’s the job of the INS.