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.
Be careful what you wish for. Now the cops can use this law to apply it to other crimes. Cops pull you over for passing a red light, what's to stop them from searching your laptop in your car for kiddie porn??? Hey, if you have nothing to hide then let the cops go through your laptop right????
After the police stop you for committing a crime they already can run your information to check for any other outstanding warrants for other crimes committed. This just gives them the ability to check if you committed a crime coming into the country illegally.
No, the part where you stop people just because they look illegal, was struck down.
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
"during a lawful stop" is what is missing. They weren't going to just randomly stop people on the street.
THAT is what NYC is doing.
No, the part where you stop people just because they look illegal, was struck down.
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
Again, there never was a part where LE could stop people just because they looked illegal. How does one look illegal anyways? Needing a warrent is a separate issue and I have no problem with that.
You are missing the part that WAS upheld and that is that LE can ask for status in this country if when stopped under lawful contact for an unrelated crime (not just looking illegal as you are claiming) and they can't provide a valid ID. That was one big victory for the anti-illegal immigration crowd and for Arizona.
Lots of people here don't know the difference between "upheld" and a "procedural" move.
The ID check was sent back to the 9th circuit, not directly upheld. Basically, opponents can still challange this law on the usage of the law (which is what the Court said they wanted to see). You won't see this last part implemented for awhile (i.e., it will be in legal limbo for longer).
I'm sure it will be challenged. However, if the police don't do anything wrong, like hold a suspect longer than they are allowed to, or stop a suspect for no reason, it will be upheld.
Sure it was, it was the core of the whole controversy. I don't think anyone gave a rats ass about any other part of the bill.
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
Only if it's pursuant to a lawful stop or police action. They cannot just eyeball people and demand identification from people who look like they are illegals.
So, the police answer a domestic disturbance call, or stops a driver for speeding, and the potential wife-beater / speeder may have provided a false ID, or cannot provide any ID and can't speak English.
The person being stopped by police could be a parole violator, escaped convict, guilty of other more serious crimes, or an illegal alien.
Sure it was, it was the core of the whole controversy. I don't think anyone gave a rats ass about any other part of the bill.
With the highlighed section, the police could arrest anyone just because they looked illegel (hispanic),
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
You're wrong again! The highlighted part just means that LE has to have a warrant to arrest someone after determining after lawful contact that someone is in this country illegally. You just don't get it do you? There were four parts to this law, not three. The first part was upheld. Geez, just watch the news for God's sake for the truth.
And put your race card back in your wallet. Being Hispanic is not reason for suspicion of being in this country illegally by itself.
No, the part where you stop people just because they look illegal, was struck down.
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
I'm glad that part was struck down. How the heck would they suspect someone of being an illegal immigrant. From their looks, their language? That is too much like a police state. The workplace is the best place to stem the flow of illegals but the court says the feds are the only ones that can do that. Obama's administration won't, but Romney's will.
"during a lawful stop" is what is missing. They weren't going to just randomly stop people on the street.
THAT is what NYC is doing.
LOL. That's because it is not there, and that is why the section was dtruck down. The only part of the law which remains in place requires the cops to make a lawful stop before demanding IDs, and that's cool. The whole controvercy was about the part which I highlighted which gave the cops the authority to arrest anyone without warrant or any other reason other than the suspect looking hispanic. That was struck down.
You know..if anyone is stopped by the police the first thing they ask for is your ID. You don't provide it then you're in that much MORE trouble. This is how it's always been in the US.
Yet it's supposed to be different for illegals because they are illegal and the Fed wants to let them stay ?
This is just another piece coming together...the US isn't even going to bother with an amnesty law.
Just let them in and don't uphold the current law.
Unfortunately you're right. Its sad to say the least. They pick and choose what laws they want to impose based on their personal agenda
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.
