U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2010, 10:46 AM
 
30,881 posts, read 24,210,085 times
Reputation: 17772

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoZ View Post
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

SB1070 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet

Seems pretty straightforward to me, or is there something I'm missing?
yes in fact there is something you are missing. according to the federal law ALL non US citizens MUST carry some form of identification, and proof that they are in this country legally. this can be a passport, visa, green card, resident alien card, state issued drivers license, etc. so when an LEO makes a lawful contact, and asks for identification, once the proper ID has been presented, the question of a persons legal immigration status is answered. a reasonable suspicion that someone might be here illegally would be a fake ID, or information given does not match the person presenting the information. if you are stopped for speeding, the cop is going to ask for your license and registration, and proof of insurance. if you cant produce a license, then you need to give the cop more information, a soc sec number for instance, along with your name.

lets say you give a false name and a false soc sec number, the car you are driving is registered in someone else's name, and you have no proof of insurance. this gives the officer reason to investigate further. if he finds that you are lying because you have warrants out for you, then you are going to the station to be further processed. at that point your immigration status can be legally checked.

while there can be abuses in any law, that is what the courts are for, to fight those that abuse the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2010, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Lake Norman, North Carolina
1,213 posts, read 1,397,570 times
Reputation: 392
What the OBL aiders/abetters/sympathizers as well as the rabid left hispandering for hispanic votes hate about SB1070, bottom line, is that, while the marxist amnesty democrats in charge of the fed gov refuse to enforce the more strict fed version of the immigration law for politically hispandering reasons, they all know fully well that Arizona will definitely be strictly enforcing Arizona's version of the immigration law which mirrors the fed law. After all, an illegal alien future democratic voter if amnestied can't vote if they've been deported, now can they? The marxist amnesty democrats want to at least keep as many illegal alien future democratic voters if amnestied in the country until they can figure out some underhanded behind closed door deal to amnesty them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2010, 02:20 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,085,289 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
I don't believe it has divided the Pro-law side at all. If anything most that didn't know how bad the problem has become now do.
Profiling; as with any law there are certain aspects of profiling. If a LEO gets a call about graffiti and shows up to a park full of people are they going to watch the senior couple or the young men on skate boards and flatbills? There is no way to get around a certain % of profiling.

States have already "written" their own laws that bypass the Constitution to certain degrees. I cannot own a concealed weapon and open carry is just about to be challanged. Both of these were "protected" under the 2nd. We'll see how this rides out but I like the odds. Other States must too as they are writing their own laws for relief as the Feds are sitting on their hands.
That is incorrect, a law can be written that is not enumerated in the constitution, or that is not expressly forbiden by the constitution; but no law can bypass the Constitution.

Many use the 2nd amendment to try to explain how communities dont follow the letter of the law or can write their own laws, but the second amendment was vaguely written and has been broadly interpreted which allows a community the flexiblity torestrict certain type of "Handgun". does not mean that community has circumvented the 2nd amendment. The court gives latitude for communities to regulate "arms" as the community sees fit.

The Arizona law may not even come down to a question of Constitutionality. The courts may rule that the precedent that Congress and the courts have given to the Federal Goverment over the States is currently the precedent.

Unless Arizona would like to petition the Court that this Ferederal power to write immigration law soley is "harmming" Arizona and the Court should grant the right to write its own State Immigration law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2010, 06:04 PM
 
Location: San Diego
32,799 posts, read 30,034,103 times
Reputation: 17687
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
That is incorrect, a law can be written that is not enumerated in the constitution, or that is not expressly forbiden by the constitution; but no law can bypass the Constitution.

Many use the 2nd amendment to try to explain how communities dont follow the letter of the law or can write their own laws, but the second amendment was vaguely written and has been broadly interpreted which allows a community the flexiblity torestrict certain type of "Handgun". does not mean that community has circumvented the 2nd amendment. The court gives latitude for communities to regulate "arms" as the community sees fit.

The Arizona law may not even come down to a question of Constitutionality. The courts may rule that the precedent that Congress and the courts have given to the Federal Goverment over the States is currently the precedent.

Unless Arizona would like to petition the Court that this Ferederal power to write immigration law soley is "harmming" Arizona and the Court should grant the right to write its own State Immigration law.
Ok, I'm trying desperately to follow you here. Bypass, circumvent, tweak, circular motion, moon walk, any State law that amends, tweaks, (insert word here) is doing some what of an end run around the Constitution. Most of the Constitution is "vaguely" written simply by how long ago it was written.
Not sure what your argument is here. Any State law is "written" just as a Federal law is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2010, 10:10 PM
 
4,270 posts, read 7,885,000 times
Reputation: 1551
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
You know how law is very technical, and since the law explicitely states that race may not be the sole factor in determining who gets checked for immigration status, therefore the law is legal and not racist because it says so right there. So the burden will have to rest on the individual officer making the arrest, not the state. You can't go around decrying a law as racist because it MIGHT have de facto racial profiling. That's like saying we should put everyone in jail right now because they might commit a crime in the future
Using this PDF: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

The document says: "The attorney general or county
attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney
shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged
unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer."

So a police officer would have to find another reason in addition to race. What reasons would form a second reason that a police officer could use?

And what I meant was not that the law "might possibly lead to racial profiling" - I meant that the law was likely designed to allow for cops to use racial profiling while having a text that would survive a legal battle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2010, 11:55 PM
 
4,270 posts, read 7,885,000 times
Reputation: 1551
Where does it say that a US citizen must carry a form of ID at all times?

And many police officers do not consider a driver's license a proof of citizenship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
yes in fact there is something you are missing. according to the federal law ALL non US citizens MUST carry some form of identification, and proof that they are in this country legally. this can be a passport, visa, green card, resident alien card, state issued drivers license, etc. so when an LEO makes a lawful contact, and asks for identification, once the proper ID has been presented, the question of a persons legal immigration status is answered. a reasonable suspicion that someone might be here illegally would be a fake ID, or information given does not match the person presenting the information. if you are stopped for speeding, the cop is going to ask for your license and registration, and proof of insurance. if you cant produce a license, then you need to give the cop more information, a soc sec number for instance, along with your name.

lets say you give a false name and a false soc sec number, the car you are driving is registered in someone else's name, and you have no proof of insurance. this gives the officer reason to investigate further. if he finds that you are lying because you have warrants out for you, then you are going to the station to be further processed. at that point your immigration status can be legally checked.

while there can be abuses in any law, that is what the courts are for, to fight those that abuse the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 07:22 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Where does it say that a US citizen must carry a form of ID at all times?

And many police officers do not consider a driver's license a proof of citizenship.
It doesn't matter what an individual police officer thinks. They still have to operate under the law. In the case of a DL most states require proof of citizenship to gain one or a green card so it is in affect proof that one is either a citizen or legal resident.

If one is stopped for a non-traffic related incident and one doesn't have any I.D. on them (who is dumb enough to do that anyway?) it can be cleared up quickly by LE through databases. Green card holders are required to carry their card with them at all times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 07:25 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Using this PDF: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

The document says: "The attorney general or county
attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney
shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged
unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer."

So a police officer would have to find another reason in addition to race. What reasons would form a second reason that a police officer could use?

And what I meant was not that the law "might possibly lead to racial profiling" - I meant that the law was likely designed to allow for cops to use racial profiling while having a text that would survive a legal battle.
There has always been the potential for racial profiling even though not endorsed by the law. However, if one doesn't have anything to hide what is the big deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 09:30 AM
 
4,270 posts, read 7,885,000 times
Reputation: 1551
Does any portion of Arizona law state that what documents are acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship (as in, if driver's licenses are automatically acceptable)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
It doesn't matter what an individual police officer thinks. They still have to operate under the law. In the case of a DL most states require proof of citizenship to gain one or a green card so it is in affect proof that one is either a citizen or legal resident.

If one is stopped for a non-traffic related incident and one doesn't have any I.D. on them (who is dumb enough to do that anyway?) it can be cleared up quickly by LE through databases. Green card holders are required to carry their card with them at all times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 16,200,288 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoZ View Post
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

SB1070 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet

Seems pretty straightforward to me, or is there something I'm missing?
read this too...
Common Myths and Facts Regarding Senate Bill 1070 | Support Arizona
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top