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.
This law *is* clearly unconstitutional. Police officers can only ask for your license when you are driving a vehicle. If they walk up to you on the street, you are under no obligation to identify yourself whatsoever unless they have cause to detain or arrest you. You may calmly walk away from any police officer at any time without speaking to them unless they are able to articulate why they believe you may have committed a crime. Even then you do not need to identify yourself at all in 30 states. In the remaining 20 (well 19 now) you only need to provide your name and DOB. You are never required to carry papers.
Under the Arizona law, not only is the "reasonable suspicion" standard used which is much weaker than the probable cause required for an arrest (which is the only situation that would compel you to disclose your identity in those 20 states that require you to identify yourself) but the thing you are being suspected of... being an illegal immigrant is something that is so broad and subjective that any officer could articulate such suspicion for anyone at any time. That functionally means that anyone may be forced to prove their identity to the state at any time. That's a violation of the constitution and a system not found in any liberal democracies on earth.
I did a fast run through of the bill and I could not find where the officers are allowed to stop you on the street and ask you your immigrant status without probable cause. The law did include:
Quote:
THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATE CITIZENS.
If you are stopped and produce a drivers license then you have shown proper ID (according to reports this type of ID would be enough to prove residency). Now if you are stopped while driving and have no ID, you have already broke the law by not having any ID and this allows the officer to investigate further.
Now other scenarios will have to be worked out on how not to violate the cilvil rights, but my guess it would include only persons who have been stpped for committing or suspecting of committing other crimes.
I did a fast run through of the bill and I could not find where the officers are allowed to stop you on the street and ask you your immigrant status without probable cause. The law did include...
If you are stopped and produce a drivers license then you have shown proper ID (according to reports this type of ID would be enough to prove residency). Now if you are stopped while driving and have no ID, you have already broke the law by not having any ID and this allows the officer to investigate further.
That I won't have an issue with. But the law leaves plenty at the discretion of the police. As this person found out yesterday.
This law *is* clearly unconstitutional. Police officers can only ask for your license when you are driving a vehicle. If they walk up to you on the street, you are under no obligation to identify yourself whatsoever unless they have cause to detain or arrest you. You may calmly walk away from any police officer at any time without speaking to them unless they are able to articulate why they believe you may have committed a crime. Even then you do not need to identify yourself at all in 30 states. In the remaining 20 (well 19 now) you only need to provide your name and DOB. You are never required to carry papers.
Under the Arizona law, not only is the "reasonable suspicion" standard used which is much weaker than the probable cause required for an arrest (which is the only situation that would compel you to disclose your identity in those 20 states that require you to identify yourself) but the thing you are being suspected of... being an illegal immigrant is something that is so broad and subjective that any officer could articulate such suspicion for anyone at any time. That functionally means that anyone may be forced to prove their identity to the state at any time. That's a violation of the constitution and a system not found in any liberal democracies on earth.
You might want to read up on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures is NOT violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. It is also known as a "Terry Stop" and quite constitutional.
Gosh, so much ignorance on this forum. The first 6 posts of this thread and many others are just complete BS. BTW. Ovcatto, why don't you just stop your racist talk and stop calling people 'brown'. I find that very offensive.
You all have no damn clue what this issue is about. How dare you be so ignorant.
I cam to this country legally. I busted my ass off. I busted my ass off to fulfil my dream. As a matter of fact, I will be sworn in as United States citizen at the end of May. I am proud to soon call myself an American.
Most of you were born here and just need to butt out when it comes to immigration issues. Barely anybody knows how hard it is to immigrate LEGALLY to the U.S. Illegal immigration has been a problem now for more than 50 years. Literally nothing has been done to address the problem. Nothing. And now that someone takes on this issue, you are whining about it? Give me a break. What a slap into the face of millions of legal immigrants. They need to deport the illegals, and they need to deport them NOW.
I am already required to have my immigration documents on me. And I will be more than happy to show them my naturalization certificate.
You can't just ignore a porblem for this long and then start crying like a baby once someone does tackle it.
Christ Matthews from MSNBC was spot on when he said that this is just the NEEDED nasty alternative of 50+ years of no enforcement of immigration laws. We need a nation-wide law. Arizona is just a small step into the right direction.
I can not believe Americans are defending this scum. You need to live up to your rederick and actually start supporting immigrants. Why don't you start with us legal immigrants. But that would be to easy, would it not. Supporting the illegals instead seems to be the way to go here.
Actually WE AMERICANS are the last people that need to butt out when it comes to immigration issues. It's OUR country, soon to be yours. Immigration and illegal immigration effects us all and you should be aware of that. In all reality ALL immigration needs to be stopped completely until AMERICANS have jobs again, unless they are so far into the process as you are.
I don't know what country you are immigrating from but do you want it like the one you decided to leave? If the Mexican illegal immigration is not stopped, we will soon look like Mexico with drug runners mowing down people with machine guns and chopping off heads. America is slowly being destroyed with this unchecked immigration. You better think about it. This will soon be your country too.
You might want to read up on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures is NOT violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. It is also known as a "Terry Stop" and quite constitutional.
Sure, but there are two huge differences:
1. Terry was crafted based on the idea that the "crimes" one might be suspected of would be finite in scope. In essence, I can contest in court that an officer had a reasonable suspicion to initially stop me since I do not match the description that was given on the BOLO. In this sense, "being an illegal alien" is a totally different thing to be suspected of a robbery or something tangible. The court has held that at the point at which the subject of suspicion is so broad that any officer could articulate justification for a stop at any time, then that is constitutionally impermissible. The nature of the crime be evident through "clear and articulable facts" that are specific to the individual being stopped. In fact, the reason the Court gave for permitting Terry was that the threshold for stops *not intended to investigate whether or not some one was committing a crime* could be lower because if the sole focus was some other purpose like protection of police officers then and only then would the search not violate the fourth amendment.
2. You are not required to answer any questions or identify yourself (if you are not operating a vehicle) during a Terry stop. A Terry stop merely allows an officer to conduct a pat down for their own safety. Furthermore, they can only advance beyond a basic pat down if they feel something that could be a knife or gun (i.e. even if they feel a baggy they can not search your pocket visibly because the baggy could not be a weapon). In this sense, Terry - even if the law was specific enough - wouldn't constitutionally justify a stop with the intent to require documents from a person or any search beyond a safety pat down.
The answer to illegal immigration is not to undermine our own rights as American citizens.
If the Fed won't do anything about it, I have no problem with the states taking it on.
AZ is currently overwhelmed with almost 500K illegals. The Fed is doing NOTHING about it.
I know Texas has asked the Fed for help and got NADA..not even a reply saying NO.
This is a very commonly touted falsehood. The language of Bill of rights is rather clear and no where do the Bill of Rights exclude any persons from protection under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th Amendment, nor do has any Supreme Court ruling revoked such protections.
You know, I just did some research on this, specifically, Yick Wo vs Hopkins (1886) and Boumediene vs Bush. Also when reading some more on the 14th Amendment and its discussion of "citizens" versus "persons", well, I stand corrected.
this is the way I see it, and Im from a border state...... although I feel bad for the illegals and wish em all the best, it is illegal to be in this country illegally, all AZ is doing is enforcing this law, there is nothing wrong with that, now if the illegals get the proper documents and become American citizens then all is good, but I do expect to see more states do what AZ did.
there are plenty of illegals that have ruined it for the good ones, plenty of them commit crimes then run back to Mexico or set up drug markets here but Americans are to blame for that one. AZ has become flooded with illegals so I can see where they are coming from.
there is nothing racist about it at all, its a simple law.
this is the way I see it, and Im from a border state...... although I feel bad for the illegals and wish em all the best, it is illegal to be in this country illegally, all AZ is doing is enforcing this law, there is nothing wrong with that, now if the illegals get the proper documents and become American citizens then all is good, but I do expect to see more states do what AZ did.
there are plenty of illegals that have ruined it for the good ones, plenty of them commit crimes then run back to Mexico or set up drug markets here but Americans are to blame for that one. AZ has become flooded with illegals so I can see where they are coming from.
there is nothing racist about it at all, its a simple law.
The status quo where officers in Arizona check immigration status following a legal arrest for a different offense is simply following the law. Passing a new law that deprives every single legal US citizen of their constitutional rights in the spirit of "enforcing the law" is an affront to the principles of freedom and small government this nation was founded on.
That is another false statement. They can not go back and get the proper documents. They are here illegally because they can not get a visa due to their lack of education in, most cases ,to obtain a visa. It just does not work that way. There are strict/tight requirements.
If they could, they would have done so or would now do it and not fight the law. They know there's no other way.
did you know that it is very expensive to become an American citizen, at least that is what this girl from Juarez told me, its easier to just come into the country illegally, if you get caught, they send you back to Mexico and you try again, now they might think twice if they actually get charged with a crime, at least in AZ.
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.
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.
