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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-28-2010, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Tokyo (but will always be) Phoenix, Az
926 posts, read 1,047,161 times
Reputation: 481
I think we are all resonable suspiction of being arrested. All of us come from different backgrounds and all of us have commited a crime whether we knew it or not. Come on people read the damn bill.It's only like 20 pages which is far less than the pages all you people that make up these random assumpsions on this website. It states that hispanic people can be pulled over if the police have a resonable suspiction they are illegal. Well why would they pull them over in the first place? Hmmm... lets go back to driving school and ask that question. Were you speeding, was a tail light out, did you make an illegal pass, did you run a stop sign? And if you have a bad English accent, are very quirky, trying to quicken up the cop's statement, or your vehicle is overloaded with people then it gives them THAT resonable suspiction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2010, 12:11 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,297 posts, read 1,196,984 times
Reputation: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phxguy View Post
Come on people read the damn bill.It's only like 20 pages which is far less than the pages all you people that make up these random assumpsions on this website. It states that hispanic people can be pulled over if the police have a resonable suspiction they are illegal. Well why would they pull them over in the first place? Hmmm... lets go back to driving school and ask that question. Were you speeding, was a tail light out, did you make an illegal pass, did you run a stop sign? And if you have a bad English accent, are very quirky, trying to quicken up the cop's statement, or your vehicle is overloaded with people then it gives them THAT resonable suspiction.
No, it doesn't state that. It doesn't refer to any one specific ethnic background but, to summarize when LE has lawfully stopped, detained or arrested someone (regardless of what their ethnic background is) and they have reasonable suspicion that they are also here illegally, they can then ask them about their immigration status. Reasonable suspicion an not be based on the person's race, color or country of origin.

I can't see how the things you listed would give the police legitimate reasonable suspicion to ask about a person's immigration status.....they could make them suspicious of a lot of things (like driving on a suspended license, having warrants out for your arrest, having drugs in the ar or something else illegal, etc....) but, I don't think being here illegally would be their first concern (if any at all).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 04:21 PM
 
14 posts, read 9,521 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slig View Post
Ok, well this goes back to my original question then, what could possibly cause "REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES" if it can't be done through racial profiling, grasp of the English language, etc.

I also don't understand what good it would be to present a federally issued document to a law enforcement officer who likely doesn't have access to that database anyway and would have to refer it to the Department of Homeland Security. Most legal aliens have other documents, such as a social security card and state issued ID...why wouldn't that be good enough? I would assume said state law enforcement guy would much more easily be able to look somebody up by their state issued ID than the federally issued one.

My wife, much like I do, will carry her state issued ID wherever she goes. Like I stated in a previous post, it is much easier to replace that if lost or stolen than a green card.

Slig,

Here is your answer. Arizona law does not require you to carry identification. You can verbally identify yourself. If you have ever been issued a drivers license, a state ID, military ID, federal ID, social security number, all you have to do is tell him. It can be checked then and there. This has been the law in the past and is reiterated in SB1070.

Reasonable suspicion would be you can not provide any of this information physically or verbally, or the information does not match the records.

So yes, those other forms of ID are good enough. The AZ officer won't even care if you dont have your visa or green card with you if you can provide one of the others. That still doesnt dismiss the fact that Federal law requires you to carry your visa or greencard.

Something you might not know. Any police officer in any state has the right to question your immigration status when you are detained by lawful means, such as a traffic stop, tresspassing, suspected of a crime, jaywalking...you get the idea. Arizona law makes it a state crime along with a federal crime. Read Muehler v. Mena, a 2005 US Supreme court ruling. In a unanimous decision the justices ruled that questioning someone about their immigration status is not a violation of their rights, provided that person is lawfully detained.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZO.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 04:41 PM
 
14 posts, read 9,521 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314 View Post
No, it doesn't state that. It doesn't refer to any one specific ethnic background but, to summarize when LE has lawfully stopped, detained or arrested someone (regardless of what their ethnic background is) and they have reasonable suspicion that they are also here illegally, they can then ask them about their immigration status. Reasonable suspicion an not be based on the person's race, color or country of origin.

I can't see how the things you listed would give the police legitimate reasonable suspicion to ask about a person's immigration status.....they could make them suspicious of a lot of things (like driving on a suspended license, having warrants out for your arrest, having drugs in the ar or something else illegal, etc....) but, I don't think being here illegally would be their first concern (if any at all).
Danno, read my previous post. The US Supreme court has ruled that you do not need reasonable suspicion to ask a person that has been detained lawfully about their immigration status. So it doesn't really matter what is considered reasonable suspicion since they don't need any in the first place.

MUEHLER V. MENA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 05:55 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 2,483,262 times
Reputation: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdb63 View Post
Slig,

Here is your answer. Arizona law does not require you to carry identification. You can verbally identify yourself. If you have ever been issued a drivers license, a state ID, military ID, federal ID, social security number, all you have to do is tell him. It can be checked then and there. This has been the law in the past and is reiterated in SB1070.

Reasonable suspicion would be you can not provide any of this information physically or verbally, or the information does not match the records.

So yes, those other forms of ID are good enough. The AZ officer won't even care if you dont have your visa or green card with you if you can provide one of the others. That still doesnt dismiss the fact that Federal law requires you to carry your visa or greencard.

Quote:
Something you might not know. Any police officer in any state has the right to question your immigration status when you are detained by lawful means, such as a traffic stop, tresspassing, suspected of a crime, jaywalking...you get the idea. Arizona law makes it a state crime along with a federal crime. Read Muehler v. Mena, a 2005 US Supreme court ruling. In a unanimous decision the justices ruled that questioning someone about their immigration status is not a violation of their rights, provided that person is lawfully detained.
MUEHLER V. MENA
that is an incorrect reading of Muehler v. Mena. Their is no law which came out of Muehler. The Court ruled on Ms. Mena's claim that her rights we violated when she was detained[handcuffed] durring a search.

Quote:
In summary, the officers’ detention of Mena in handcuffs during the execution of the search warrant was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the officers’ questioning of Mena did not constitute an independent Fourth Amendment violation.
the questioning of Mena's immigration status was not at question or part of the ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 06:41 PM
 
Location: ...at a 3AM epiphany
2,207 posts, read 1,305,258 times
Reputation: 445
Regarding the Arizona law, which will go into affect shortly, I have to say this. No matter the smears, no matter the boycotts, no matter the racist slurs, horrible half truths and misguided main stream media reports and no matter the few who try desperately to legalize criminals coming into this Country and wreaking havoc, America has had enough. We stand strong and United for as we are...the United States of America and we always prevail.

The majority of America do not want illegal aliens here sucking our last dime, committing crimes against our own, disrespecting our land and laws. We don't want them here. So, we won't have them here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 08:39 PM
 
14 posts, read 9,521 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
that is an incorrect reading of Muehler v. Mena. Their is no law which came out of Muehler. The Court ruled on Ms. Mena's claim that her rights we violated when she was detained[handcuffed] durring a search.



the questioning of Mena's immigration status was not at question or part of the ruling.
Texan,

Did I say anything about a law? I specifically said a Supreme Court ruling.

I suggest you read the opinion of the court. They ruled on both her detainment and immigration questioning.

Here is their ruling on the immigration questioning

The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena’s Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F.3d, at 1264—1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.” Bostick, supra, at 434—435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 08:56 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 2,483,262 times
Reputation: 926
The Court ruled that Ms. Mena's 4th amendment rights were not violated by being detained[handcuffed] durring the search, they also ruled that her 4th amendment rights were not violated when LEO ask immigration staus in that circumstance.

The court didnt rule that all LEO could ask immigration status in all contact by a LEO. The Arizona law will attempt to set that precedent, but Muehler v. Mena does not set it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 11:54 PM
 
14 posts, read 9,521 times
Reputation: 14
They didn't rule on her being questioned on her immigration status in your first post, then they did in your second post, but now it doesn't apply to SB 1070.

I agree with you that LEO can not ask for immigration status in all contact by a LEO. But the ruling does set precedent that if you are lawfully detained, LEO can inquire about your immigration status.

SB 1070 clearly states you can only be question on you immigration status if you are lawfully detained, and there is reasonable suspicion of your legal status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2010, 05:50 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 2,483,262 times
Reputation: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdb63 View Post
They didn't rule on her being questioned on her immigration status in your first post, then they did in your second post, but now it doesn't apply to SB 1070.

I agree with you that LEO can not ask for immigration status in all contact by a LEO. But the ruling does set precedent that if you are lawfully detained, LEO can inquire about your immigration status.

SB 1070 clearly states you can only be question on you immigration status if you are lawfully detained, and there is reasonable suspicion of your legal status.
An LEO can do so if acting as a proxy Federal agent as if the LE agency is working in coordination with ICE as in the 287(g) program, but the Arizona law is different is that the AZ law set the AZ LEO as not a proxy Federal agent following ICE rules and guidelines, but set to create State guidlines.
The AZ LEO loses the powers granted to them through the 287(g) program.

The Court will rule whether a State LEO has the right to inquire as to immigration status regardless of the detention situation.

I disagree that precedent has been set, but we will soon see as this law and this very point will be reviewed.
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 $84,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, 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 - Top