Arizona Law SB 1070 and HB 2162 Examined. Cite Your Reasons For Dissent.

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
reply to post by Annee

 

I STILL have not heard a cogent dissent against the Bill as stated in my OP, based on accusations of "racism", "taking of rights", or "racial profiling"....

Please people...this thread is to dissenters to ANSWER and CHALLENGE my op.

I'm still waiting.

I know. Not sure I can be truly objective - since I do live here and know the bigger picture.

The predominant population of Arizona is of Mexican heritage. Then we have the "Good Old Boys" leaning toward white supremacy. It is very racist IMO.

Originally posted by maybereal11
I'll give it a run, if for no other purpose than to give you guys something to hack at..

WHERE 25 REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO AND IS 26 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES,

Define what "Reasonable suspicion" is?

Hmmmmmm

You are referring to "PART B" but you didn't include the previous text.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN
23 OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY
24 OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE WHERE
25 REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO AND IS
26 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES

The previous speaks about"lawful contact stop, detention, or arrest". Number 25 comes after part "B" chronologically and within context.

Then as we read more the Bill says:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE
33 OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY
34 NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE
35 REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION

Bills have to be read and cited in CONTEXT of entire subsections. Cherry picking lines won't do it.

Balls in your court.....

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
reply to post by Annee

 

I STILL have not heard a cogent dissent against the Bill as stated in my OP, based on accusations of "racism", "taking of rights", or "racial profiling"....

Please people...this thread is to dissenters to ANSWER and CHALLENGE my op.

I'm still waiting.

I know. Not sure I can be truly objective - since I do live here and know the bigger picture.

The predominant population of Arizona is of Mexican heritage. Then we have the "Good Old Boys" leaning toward white supremacy. It is very racist IMO.

"IMO"

Opinions don't matter, we all have them.

Now please argue the FACTS about the language of the BILL. Otherwise, you are taking an emotional stance based on something other than fact.

"Predominant population of Arizona in Mexican"?

Argument from popularity doesn't negate law.

"Good old Boys"?

What does that have to do with LAW again?

reply to post by Annee


And if you are going to cite something or someone as "racist", it is YOUR JOB to prove that assertion. Back your claims and I'll listen, otherwise it's just empty vapor and bumper sticker politics.

The problem that I have isn't with the bill itself but with the way it was made to look like something bold and the governor made to be the savior in this battle for the southern states. It just reeks of politics.

All the law does is give an officer the right to ask for proof of citizenship. This federal law could have been used by Arizona to get their officers asking the same question.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was made law in the United States in 1995 as a result of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Section 287(g) authorizes the Federal Government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.

I strongly believe that devide and conquer is the true name of the game.

Made a mistake in posting

[edit on 21-5-2010 by mamabeth]

Originally posted by maybereal11
I'll give it a run, if for no other purpose than to give you guys something to hack at..

WHERE 25 REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO AND IS 26 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES,

Define what "Reasonable suspicion" is?

Terms like reasonable suspicion and probable cause have been clearly defined by the SCOTUS for decades. I recommend paying the SCOTUS website a visit for case law involving these terms.

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


I cited the specific sentence that I had a question about...not cherry picking unless you'd like me to cut and paste the entire bill.

On a side-note you seem to have included excerpts from the old bill? rather than the amended one, seeing as the word "soley" was crossed out on the most recent version?

Lastly, for all of your quoting it is strange that you did not even attempt answer my actual question?

[edit on 21-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by maybereal11
I'll give it a run, if for no other purpose than to give you guys something to hack at..

WHERE 25 REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO AND IS 26 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES,

Define what "Reasonable suspicion" is?

Terms like reasonable suspicion and probable cause have been clearly defined by the SCOTUS for decades. I recommend paying the SCOTUS website a visit for case law involving these terms.

Please don't take offense...this is a cop-out answer and completely useless.

I am well aware of what constitutes Reasonable Suspicion...the legal little brother to Probable Cause..in cases involving suspected or immanent crime, but am unclear as to what would establish "Reasonable Suspicion" with regards to someone's citizenship.

Skin tone perhaps? Language skills? The make and model of the car they are driving?

THE SCOTUS CERTAINLY HASN'T HEARD A CASE WITH REGARDS TO THIS BILL YET.

If you think I am parsing words, I would remind you that is precisely what the OP invited posters to do.

If you think the question is irrelevant...I think a year from now AZ attorneys will disagree with you as "Reasonable suspicion" is the standard by which everything else concerning prosecuting this bill will follow.

So I ask again...IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS BILL AND SUSPECTING SOMEONE OF BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, WHAT CONSTITUTES "REASONABLE SUSPICION"

reasonable suspicion could include not having a drivers license, or mexican plates on your car, or the type of car you drive.... automotive companies do make certain models of cars for only certain places like mexico and the u.s... nobody said it would be easy to point out, but if you have lived next to the border for a long period of time you can tell the difference between the illegals and those who are here legally

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE
33 OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY
34 NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE
35 REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION

Bills have to be read and cited in CONTEXT of entire subsections. Cherry picking lines won't do it.

Balls in your court.....

Hmmm. CONTEXT huh?...you seemed to have ommited what followed that last part..

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE
OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

Curious turn of phrase...Not "Except to the extent permitted by Federal and local laws"...but to the extent permitted by the US and AZ constitutions? Are you aware of what protections the US constitions have with regards to discrimination?.....Very little....Thus the need for the civil rights bill, THAT is what I suspect the motivation to be behind having this bill restricted by the constituion rather than actual US law.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by Soup or Fly
nobody said it would be easy to point out, but if you have lived next to the border for a long period of time you can tell the difference between the illegals and those who are here legally

“If you can tell a wise man by the color of his skin, Mister you're a better man than I.” - Aerosmith

As for not having your DL with you...and being hauled down to the local Police Station...that will go for Joe white farmer in the pick-up truck as well?

dp

[edit on 21-5-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by Soup or Fly
nobody said it would be easy to point out, but if you have lived next to the border for a long period of time you can tell the difference between the illegals and those who are here legally

“If you can tell a wise man by the color of his skin, Mister you're a better man than I.” - Aerosmith

As for not having your DL with you...and being hauled down to the local Police Station...that will go for Joe white farmer in the pick-up truck as well?

yes but the police can also run your plates and see who owns the vehicle and also run names through their computer data base to see if you have a drivers license... now you're just being picky and choosey i gave you a list of some of the things i would be looking for that would give me reasonable suspicion.... so if i pulled over somebody that had mexican plates and didn't have a Az DLand their name doesn't come up in the data base..... then that would be reasonable suspicion..... simple as that.... it's not going to be any one thing that gives reasonable suspicion.... it is going to be many factors.


If you have lived along the mexican border for a long period of time like i have (i have lived here my entire life) you CAN tell the difference... the way they act the way they talk the way they drive and the way they dress... these might constitute you to say profiling, but i'm not asking for papers i'm just proving that you can see the differences if you know what to look for.

[edit on 5/21/2010 by Soup or Fly]

Another Member had posted this Case and I thank him for it.

It should punch hole the size of a Titanic size Iceberg for the sympathizers who continue to cite 4th Amendment.

Muehler, Darin v. Mena, Iris

Writing the lead opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist reasoned that the use of force in the form of handcuffs to detain Mena was reasonable because the governmental interest in minimizing the risk of harm to both officers and occupants outweighed the marginal intrusion. The Court also concluded that the questioning of Mena about her immigration status also did not violate her 4th Amendment rights.

Now you can stop with the Nonsense of the 4th Amendment Defense.

reply to post by maybereal11


According to all case law traditions, anywhere the terms reasonable suspicion and probable cause appear they are defined by the parameters held up by the SCOTUS. A SCOTUS decision is not arbitrary and it's case law application to state and federal laws isn't either. It's called Legal Precedence for a reason.

No offense taken. I can deal with passionate debate.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by projectvxn]

I'd like to respond but I am at the beach and can't see my screen well enough.

Didn't know this would make the home page...I'll respond later.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by maybereal11

 

According to all case law traditions, anywhere the terms reasonable suspicion and probable cause appear they are defined by the parameters held up by the SCOTUS. A SCOTUS decision is not arbitrary and it's case law application to state and federal laws isn't either. It's called Legal Precedence for a reason.

No offense taken. I can deal with passionate debate.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by projectvxn]

Agreed.

And there is no current case law pertaining to what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" when assesing if a suspect might or might not be an illegal alien.

There is case law as to assesing if someone has been drinking underage or driving while drunk and a whole myriad of applications.

But simply "being" of an illegal nature by your very presence? This will make for some interesting legal debate as to what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" for this application.

I hate illegal polish people as much as illegal south American people as much as illegal Germans and illegal Chinese I am 2 of 4 of those.

AZ is doing what has to be done right now - 2 million new legalized people every year on top of our already stout population growth is enough.

And for what it's worth if there were 10 illegal in a crowd of 100 I could pick out at least 7, cops get trained to spot criminals by suspicious behavioral patterns common but more than that you can many times just tell - many have this dumbfounded look on there face common with people who don't understand the language in a foreign country.

Personally I think anyone who supports illegals should pay extra in taxes to cover there bills.

I figure conservatively it would be 350 a piece for 30% or 100 million possible supporters every year.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by circuitsports]

reply to post by maybereal11

But simply "being" of an illegal nature by your very presence? This will make for some interesting legal debate as to what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" for this application.

That is not what the law states. You can't be detained for being "Hispanic on a walk". You can be detained and questioned within Constitutional constraints, Constraints and guidelines that were derived by case law. They are indeed there, you just have to look a bit more.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by projectvxn]