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

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Originally posted by TheAmused
reply to post by Freedom or Death

 

hey i am white and if i get pulled over for what ever reason
and i got no proof what so ever i am citizen..take me to jail till i can prove i am...

Remember Arizona is getting money from the Fed.

They may actually be using Arizona as a cover to get people to accept a universal Federal Id.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]

I am REALLY curious what you mean by your post.

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
This is amazing to me that so many pages in this thread and we have yet to see and serious fact based arguments....ATS' standards are not what they once seemed.

FACT:

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.... is Latin Legal Phrase which translates to: the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies

FACT:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.

FACT:

"presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (in some criminal justice systems) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.

FACT:

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

FACT:

The wording states:

"A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:"

In short... A person is presumed to be an an unlawful alien (criminal) unless he can prove otherwise with paperwork he must carry in his back pocket.

Sri Oracle

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Finding them wandering aimlessly in the desert 50 miles north of the border with no food, no water and 1 cell phone that does nothing but play "la cucaracha"

Sorry, but that would be a dead giveaway.



Peace

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


All jokes aside...how would you genuinely decide if someone walking down the street was an illegal immigrant without using racial profiling? If someone reports a crime, requiring the officer to make a "lawful contact" as per the AZ bill, how would he decide whether or not to demand proof of innocence from the reporting individual, other than using racial profiling?

Why don't we go after the criminal businesses that are employing these people and providing the incentive to come across the border?

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


I am also on the fence about this for two reasons. One, that it promotes the police state. The other is that it was co-sponsored by Rep. Russell Pierce who has obvious ties to neo-nazi front man J.T. Ready. Look him up.
I do agree that there is an IMMENSE influx of illegal aliens coming through, but the Federal Government should have stepped up.
As for Mexican President Calderon....ignore him. I wish I could spit on his face. Him and his elite Mexican brethren is what is causing this quagmire. I am an expatriate that has lived in Mexico for over two decades. Life where I live is good. There are a lot of expatriates here who have created a community in symbiosis with the Mexicans.
The reason why so many people flock to the U.S.A. is because the Mexican elites are actually trying to force the poor and indigenous out of Mexico. They don't care about them. Period!.
This is expounded by the drug cartel problem that has REALLY manifested itself in the last few years. I will not drive through Mexico. I will fly.
The situation is what it is. There are too many needy people coming over and abusing the system. I've have asked this question to many Mexicans, "Why don't you rebel against your government?" The answer is because they are afraid.
The Mexican people are tired of fighting, there is a rich culture in place, but no one wants to stir the pot, as they say.....

my 2 cents

I loved where you were going with this man, I really did. I liked the new take on what's fast becoming and old topic. I was really hoping for some sort of legitimate debate on the finer points. Sadly, it ain't gonna happen. As with most other threads on the subject, yours has been hijacked by progressives who can't see the forest for the trees... they'd rather needle you to death over individual words than contextually, what the paragraphs they're in represent... in other words, you have won your challenge. No one has addressed the bill. They've addressed the possibility of police abuses. Questioned the word usage of "solely." Questioned why they have to carry some form of i.d. And of course, labeled everyone who supports doing something over doing nothing as uneducated, ignorant, racist, nazi or facist - most of whom clearly don't even know the definition of the words. Six pages is enough to claim victory. I'm out... peace.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
FACT:

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.... is Latin Legal Phrase which translates to: the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

FACT:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.

FACT:

"presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (in some criminal justice systems) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.

Yes... we have that here in this country innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's kind of the foundation of jurisprudence and our whole judicial system.

FACT:

The wording states:

"A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:"

In short... A person is presumed to be an an unlawful alien (criminal) unless he can prove otherwise with paperwork he must carry in his back pocket.

Sri Oracle

The law also states.

"B. FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION."

In short the police will only question citizenship and pursue the possibility of immigration violation when the individual in question has already been pulled over, detained, or arrested.
Also note another section which forbids police and other LEO's from using race as a determining factor in regards to immigration status.

"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT 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."

Seems the only time ANYONE would have to worry about answering questions over their citizenship is when they are already in police custody suspected of another offense, or when they are driving(they should have ID at times like these anyway).

reply to post by Legion2112


Since no one else seems to be able or willing to answer my question, maybe you can.

Can you please define "reasonable suspicion" as it related to the immigration status of an individual without using race or language as criteria for such suspicion?

reply to post by Sri Oracle


If you were born in a mobile home in Oklahoma and worked on your daddy's farm, you're either white or black. How do I know? Mexicans don't own farms in America, they work on them. OOPS, sorry about that, I just racially profiled you. [ See how well that worked?]

How many white or black people do you know that were born in mexico and don't know a lick of English. I don't know of any. If there are, I'd REALLY like to meet them. OOOPS, golly gosh almighty sir, what have I done? Looks like I done went and racially profiled in reverse.

You can keep spouting all the latin you want bubba, I'll keep using my common sense.

BTW, using my linguistic profiling methods, I have determined you to be of Italian heritage, and here illegaly based on the fact that your latin is better than your english. I based all these determinations on historical facts, figures, and data and they have NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the current world in which I live.



Peace

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

Cornell Law


There you go, right from a Law school.

Now, would you like to know what the legal definition of "the" means?

reply to post by Kratos40


Your 2 cents are worth ALOT in debates like this.

Thank you for the insight.



Peace

I think anyone that honestly believes there will be no racial profiling, is considerably naive.

reply to post by endisnighe


That doesn't answer my question. What, specifically, would raise a reasonable doubt over immigration issues if you remove race and language from the equation. The Arizona bill prohibits the use of race and language as factors in reasonable suspicion, so I just want to know what supporters of the bill feel is admissible for officers to use as reasonable doubt.

Please answer the question, rather than providing more definitions that have nothing to do with the answer.

reply to post by RobG21


Well as the Law is quoted in my post above you can see there in the highlighted text that this sort of behavior is directly forbidden by the current AZ law.

This thread is not to discuss the law's potential abuses by power hungry LEO's. Bullies like the one's you are worried about can and should be brought to justice.

That is however beside the point, as this thread was posted to debate the law itself, rather than potential lawbreakers.

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Originally posted by TheAmused
reply to post by Freedom or Death

 

hey i am white and if i get pulled over for what ever reason
and i got no proof what so ever i am citizen..take me to jail till i can prove i am...

They may actually be using Arizona as a cover to get people to accept a universal Federal Id.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]

I am REALLY curious what you mean by your post.

Remember Arizona is getting money from the Fed, so Arizona is a puppet.

Fear the brown people, accept your National Id.

This is about as simple as I can make my point.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c30f2c9c24bc.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45fcf147b9b7.jpg[/atsimg]

And we all become slaves.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]

The one section that I had an issue with has been amended in this version.

I reall don't have any issues with this law in it's current form.

I have a feeling though that AZ is going to get a shock when INS won't take the aliens they turn into them. INS is understaffed and underfunded.
They'll be back on the streets in like 15 mins.

In the end this will be a futile excersize.

Originally posted by grey580

I have a feeling though that AZ is going to get a shock when INS won't take the aliens they turn into them.

In the end this will be a futile excersize.

Remember the goal of the Federal government is actually to expand itself by any and all means neccesary.

More bodies means, more revenue.

Exporting bodies is not in the best interest of the Fed.

LOL, that "Bueller? Bueller?" clip was funny. I remember seeing a funny clip in Family Guy about Immigration as well.

I posted in another thread that anyone who opposes this bill either doesn't know the wording of the bill, is connected to criminal activity somehow that relies on the illegals, has their facts wrong or is just plain Un-American.

This Immigration should have been done a LONG time ago. No one should be in any country illegally. They put unnecessary stress and strain on the system. Oh yeah, you'll hear them say they want to come to America for a better life, but coming here illegally isn't starting off in that honest, positive, law-abiding way now is it?

If they came illegally that means from there on they will be doing more and more illegal activities to stay under the radar.

I guarantee crime will go down once more and more illegals are sent back. Less traffic accidents as well which means insurance rates won't go up. Think of all the unnecessary accidents that occur and in turn, how much insurance rates go up. Think of all the resources from police, fire, and everything that'll be freed up for law-abiding citizens --you know, the people that actually pay for those services.

I'm so glad to hear Costa Mesa and...(was it Rhode Island?) are going to be doing similar things as to AZ. Hmm, coincidence? Rhode Island / Family Guy? Lol.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


The disparity between the rich and poor is SO apparent when you drive through any border entrance. The real Mexican ELITE live in the central Mexican states, in huge estates guarded by the military. And the more Spanish blood lines have estates in Spain, Portugal, France and Britain. Even though the military is mostly of Aztec, Maya, Zapotec, etc. ethnicity they only follow orders just to get paid and to feed their families. It is what it is.
This whole premise of why we are in this situation is because of this:


en.wikipedia.org...

Corruption in Mexico has been going for decades, but this individual took the cake!

Just my 4 cents....

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

That doesn't answer my question. What, specifically, would raise a reasonable doubt over immigration issues if you remove race and language from the equation. The Arizona bill prohibits the use of race and language as factors in reasonable suspicion, so I just want to know what supporters of the bill feel is admissible for officers to use as reasonable doubt.

Where in the Arizona Law, or in the AZ or US Constitution is language removed as a factor? The inability to understand the english language is a BIG clue to determining citizenship.

Not a guarantee by any means however, which is why suspicion is only step 2 in the process, after the individual's arrest or traffic stop for other offenses. Plenty of opportunity to prove citizenship by other ways as time goes on.