Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (2 Viewers)

[otello]

I love the subheadline "ACLU won't support it"

All the more reason to like it.

If the ACLU is opposed to something, that usually means there is good reason NOT to like it.

Sadly no. Not much use for them, just like the unions.

You dont think there is any use for an organization thats mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

There is, just as there is use for an organization "founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."

 

[Desert_Power]

So people know, in AZ we are currently cutting teachers, firefighters and policemen.

We simply don't have the resources.

That's not an excuse for the inevitable violations of civil liberties. Enforce the existing laws, continue to punish employers, secure the border, and deport illegals who are caught committing other crimes. But the random usurpation of the 4th amendment that this law makes inevitable is completely unacceptable. No way this thing survives the legal challenges.

here's the issue, and I'm not sure this is as obvious to you as it should be...Illegal's don't have a 4th ammendment, and if they do, it doesn't apply in the United States of America...

Does it suck that this would cause annoyance to people who are legally here? Yes. Do I feel sorry for them since most people in their "community" fight tooth and nail to cause us all to ignore illegal immigration laws to the detriment of us all? Not one bit.

Sorry, I don't feel bad, I just can't... Just like I don't really feel bad for a 25 year old black man with $10,000 rims on his $2,500 car bouncing down the street with 3 gold/diamond teeth playing rap music as loud as his $10,000 system can play it "simply for being black"... There is something to be said for creating and perpetrating stereotypes, they caused them to exist, now if they want to live in that stereotype, than that's their problem and they need to deal with the consequences of the fact that it is a deservedly negative stereotype...

Wow.

 

[the moops]

There is, just as there is use for an organization "founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."

OK.What does that have to do with the ACLU?

 

[otello]

I agree with you. There is room for both.

 

[Card Trader]

I wish we'd use this time to start checking IDs of the "protesters", might be a good way to get a head start on cleaning up this state.

 

[phthalatemagic]

The potential problem with this law is that it will inevitably target Latinos.

No. The potential problem with this law is that it violates the 4th Amendment for everyone. I know you are lobbying to be the patron saint of Mexican immigrants, but perhaps you can broaden your perspective for a bit.

 

[timschochet]

The potential problem with this law is that it will inevitably target Latinos.

No. The potential problem with this law is that it violates the 4th Amendment for everyone. I know you are lobbying to be the patron saint of Mexican immigrants, but perhaps you can broaden your perspective for a bit.

I'm not lobbying to be the saint of anyone. And yes, you may be right, but the primary people it will affect will be Latinos. Just look at the post right above yours where somebody is hoping they'll start IDing the "protesters". I think some people have completely lost their perspective out of fear of illegals. You don't need to fear illegals. The vast majority are here to work hard and improve their lives. In so doing, they improve all of us as well. To be so fearful and unaccepting is frankly, unAmerican. We should welcome these people with open arms and help them if we can. In return, they will make us a better nation. If we try to keep them out or remove them or punish people who employ them, we make ourselves worse, and it won't work anyhow. Just accept the inevitable.

 

[Soonerman]

Regarding the Mexican laws restricting immigrants: there is a reason we are one of the greatest places to live, and Mexico, despite having great natural resources, wonderful people and a growing economy, has so much destitution, corruption, and misery. I am very thankful that we are not Mexico, and I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to imitate that government.

Imitating a single policy is imitating their government? I hope they don't charge taxes, or we better get rid of those pronto as well. Are you going to use this same lithmus test for every policy on their books similar to one on ours?

This particular policy of theirs is illustrative of the differences between the two governments. One of the great strengths of America is that we welcome legal immigrants.

Fixed.

I have never understood this argument. What difference does it make?

Seriously?

 

[Soonerman]

Regarding the Mexican laws restricting immigrants: there is a reason we are one of the greatest places to live, and Mexico, despite having great natural resources, wonderful people and a growing economy, has so much destitution, corruption, and misery. I am very thankful that we are not Mexico, and I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to imitate that government.

Imitating a single policy is imitating their government? I hope they don't charge taxes, or we better get rid of those pronto as well. Are you going to use this same lithmus test for every policy on their books similar to one on ours?

This particular policy of theirs is illustrative of the differences between the two governments. One of the great strengths of America is that we welcome legal immigrants.

Fixed.

How welcoming is it to legal immigrants when they are subject to random searches because they look Mexican?

Really. You believe this is going to lead to "random searches because they look Mexican"?Wow.

 

[Yenrub]

Really. You believe this is going to lead to "random searches because they look Mexican"?Wow.

You don't?

 

[Soonerman]

Really. You believe this is going to lead to "random searches because they look Mexican"?Wow.

You don't?

Believe me, once every cop goes through the governor's newly created training program (to say nothing of all the other "sensitivity training" they go through), this law will turn out to be a big nothingburger.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I feel like I could quote a dozen posts with this response but,

You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

 

[Soonerman]

I feel like I could quote a dozen posts with this response but, You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

They don't, and this law won't change that.

 

[videoguy505]

I feel like I could quote a dozen posts with this response but, You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

Is this in the new law? I can't find it. I feel I could quote a dozen posts where I've asked this question and all I've been able to find about it was what I quoted before... it's not there. The new Arizona law just references an existing federal law.

 

[LHUCKS]

You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

For the same reasons Americans are asked to walk through metal detectors and wait in security lines at airports.Arizonan is under siege from drug cartels and human traffickers, the Federal govt. isn't doing anything so AZ lawmakers are. Every week there are innocent Arizonans getting killed...not too mention the strain illegals put on our local govt. finances.

Jan Brewer is doing a heck of a job here.

 

[timschochet]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. The nickname for Italian-Americans from the early 20th century was "wops", meaning "without papers." Most of them had to come to Ellis Island, anyhow, like the Jews and Poles, but the point is NONE of these had any real papers, neither did the Hungarians or Chinese or Japanese, etc. But that was when we simply processed everyone and let them in. We were a far more vibrant country in those days, full of a vitality that I think we partially lack today. I would also note that the types of complaints LHUCKS and other people here make about criminal activity by illegals was made back then just as loudly, along with concerns about the cost to our infrastructure, etc. It was an insipid argument then, and its one now as well. If Arizona attempts to enforce this law, mark my words, it will be cutting its own throat.

 

[LHUCKS]

Yes, seriously. The nickname for Italian-Americans from the early 20th century was "wops", meaning "without papers." Most of them had to come to Ellis Island, anyhow, like the Jews and Poles, but the point is NONE of these had any real papers, neither did the Hungarians or Chinese or Japanese, etc. But that was when we simply processed everyone and let them in. We were a far more vibrant country in those days, full of a vitality that I think we partially lack today. I would also note that the types of complaints LHUCKS and other people here make about criminal activity by illegals was made back then just as loudly, along with concerns about the cost to our infrastructure, etc. It was an insipid argument then, and its one now as well. If Arizona attempts to enforce this law, mark my words, it will be cutting its own throat.

You're comparing Chinese immigrants to the violent human traffickers and the bordertown drug cartels that are gunning down innocent Americans...okay.Further, Arizona is in the middle of its worst budget crisis in its history unlike most of the cities you just cited.And even further, most of the groups you cited were migrating when entitlements were NOT out of control, unlike now.Let me know when you plan on making a reasonable argument/comparisons.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I feel like I could quote a dozen posts with this response but, You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

They don't, and this law won't change that.

So if the police question a person, and they refuse to show ID, and there is no sanction for this, what is the point of the law? As I understand it, and I'm admitedly underversed, those questioned have to show proof of citizenship or other documentation to justify their status.

 

[Smack Tripper]

You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

For the same reasons Americans are asked to walk through metal detectors and wait in security lines at airports.Arizonan is under siege from drug cartels and human traffickers, the Federal govt. isn't doing anything so AZ lawmakers are. Every week there are innocent Arizonans getting killed...not too mention the strain illegals put on our local govt. finances.

Jan Brewer is doing a heck of a job here.

And you think that whole airport song and dance is a good thing? That was always sold to us under the guise that "flying is a privilege". Any invaision by the state comes with the bonnet of "privilege" for that which used to be rights. How about, I don't want to show my ID and you have no probable cause to impinge upon me.I'm glad to know Arizona will be the safest state in the union once we get the brown people out of there though.

And for the record, my state pays the freight on Arizona, as they receive more federal funding than they contribute, so we are to start talking about strains on a collective, lets look at the entire state to begin with.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, seriously. The nickname for Italian-Americans from the early 20th century was "wops", meaning "without papers." Most of them had to come to Ellis Island, anyhow, like the Jews and Poles, but the point is NONE of these had any real papers, neither did the Hungarians or Chinese or Japanese, etc. But that was when we simply processed everyone and let them in. We were a far more vibrant country in those days, full of a vitality that I think we partially lack today. I would also note that the types of complaints LHUCKS and other people here make about criminal activity by illegals was made back then just as loudly, along with concerns about the cost to our infrastructure, etc. It was an insipid argument then, and its one now as well. If Arizona attempts to enforce this law, mark my words, it will be cutting its own throat.

You're comparing Chinese immigrants to the violent human traffickers and the bordertown drug cartels that are gunning down innocent Americans...okay.Further, Arizona is in the middle of its worst budget crisis in its history unlike most of the cities you just cited.And even further, most of the groups you cited were migrating when entitlements were NOT out of control, unlike now.Let me know when you plan on making a reasonable argument/comparisons.

Given your attitude on other issues, I normally don't like to respond to you, but since you raise some valid points, I'm going to do so for the sake of whoever else might want to read this and enter into the discussion. If, by writing this, you think I'm being patronizing toward you and dismissive in general of your views, you are correct:1. The reason that I do believe it is a valid comparison is because what you have written about "violent human traffickers" and gangs "gunning down innocent Americans" was EXACTLY the same rhetoric used against the Chinese and other immigrants, sometimes more extreme. (To be fair, the reaction against them was more extreme as well, as when two Chinese teenage boys were publicly lynched at San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf for supposedly assaulting a white woman- I think the year was 1910.) 2. However, your points about the budget crisis for Arizona, and the fact that entitlements were not as large back then as they are now (I won't use the phrase "out of control" since that's a subjective POV) are not without merit. I frankly would like it if certain entitlements were reduced. However, I firmly believe that even with entitlements and the budget the way it is, the overall economic benefits of illegal immigrants outweigh their costs. I could produce many studies to show you why this is so, but basically they come down to the brute fact that by paying people less wages to perform menial labor (especially agricutural labor) prices are kept lower, and these low prices affect your pocketbook more than do your state taxes. Anti-illegal activists point to studies that present the opposite conclusion by focusing, as you do, on the specific costs to each border state caused by illegal crime, healthcare, education, and other social services for illegals. They then look at the amount of revenue these states receive and demonstrate the disparity. I think this is a flawed argument because it fails to look at the overall economic situation.

 

[Saints-Man]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. The nickname for Italian-Americans from the early 20th century was "wops", meaning "without papers." Most of them had to come to Ellis Island, anyhow, like the Jews and Poles, but the point is NONE of these had any real papers, neither did the Hungarians or Chinese or Japanese, etc. But that was when we simply processed everyone and let them in. We were a far more vibrant country in those days, full of a vitality that I think we partially lack today. I would also note that the types of complaints LHUCKS and other people here make about criminal activity by illegals was made back then just as loudly, along with concerns about the cost to our infrastructure, etc. It was an insipid argument then, and its one now as well. If Arizona attempts to enforce this law, mark my words, it will be cutting its own throat.

1) You are going to have to prove this. Immigration laws were far more stringent back then....you needed to have a sponsor in the US to enter this country. 2) Your second point contradicts itself. The US is more diverse today then it was at the time you are describing. So, you are stating that at time with less population diversity was more vibrant than now. So, should we go back to a less diverse population to become more diverse?

 

[timschochet]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. The nickname for Italian-Americans from the early 20th century was "wops", meaning "without papers." Most of them had to come to Ellis Island, anyhow, like the Jews and Poles, but the point is NONE of these had any real papers, neither did the Hungarians or Chinese or Japanese, etc. But that was when we simply processed everyone and let them in. We were a far more vibrant country in those days, full of a vitality that I think we partially lack today. I would also note that the types of complaints LHUCKS and other people here make about criminal activity by illegals was made back then just as loudly, along with concerns about the cost to our infrastructure, etc. It was an insipid argument then, and its one now as well. If Arizona attempts to enforce this law, mark my words, it will be cutting its own throat.

1) You are going to have to prove this. Immigration laws were far more stringent back then....you needed to have a sponsor in the US to enter this country. 2) Your second point contradicts itself. The US is more diverse today then it was at the time you are describing. So, you are stating that at time with less population diversity was more vibrant than now. So, should we go back to a less diverse population to become more diverse?

1. With the sole exception of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the "Gentleman's Agreement" of 1907 regarding Japan (both of which were basically ignored anyhow) there were no real restrictions on United States immigration until the Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1924, which served to basically cut off European immigration. The sponsorship restrictions you're speaking of did not take effect until after this period: mostly during the 30s, 40s, and thereafter. During the heyday of Irish, German, and later Italian, Polish, Hungarian, and Jewish emigration to the United States, there were no restrictions. 2. I believe the United States was more vibrant not because it had more immigrants already living here but because it accepted more immigrants. If you look at the achievements of immigrants and second generation of immigrants from 1880-1920 in terms of business, arts, culture, science, medicine- it is unrivaled in American history before or since.

 

[Saints-Man]

1. With the sole exception of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the "Gentleman's Agreement" of 1907 regarding Japan (both of which were basically ignored anyhow) there were no real restrictions on United States immigration until the Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1924, which served to basically cut off European immigration. The sponsorship restrictions you're speaking of did not take effect until after this period: mostly during the 30s, 40s, and thereafter. During the heyday of Irish, German, and later Italian, Polish, Hungarian, and Jewish emigration to the United States, there were no restrictions. 2. I believe the United States was more vibrant not because it had more immigrants already living here but because it accepted more immigrants. If you look at the achievements of immigrants and second generation of immigrants from 1880-1920 in terms of business, arts, culture, science, medicine- it is unrivaled in American history before or since.

1) Thanks for educating me on that. My knowledge of the immigration process was dealing back to my grandparents which was after 1917.2) Well, it would be difficult to match immigration of that time frame in terms of % of the population because the population has grown so much. The immigrants made up a larger portion of the population back then as America expanded from ocean to ocean and needed the population. Since immigrants made up a larger portion of the population and were in place as the US grew into a world power, it is no surprise that they contributed to some of those fields. It was more the unique time in America and the dawn of the Industrial age than immigration itself. As far as raw numbers, I am not sure it was greater then than now. As far as achievements, I think it is just one of perception though because we can look back at that time frame and see those advances and now we are in the middle of those advances. For example, one of the greatest medical advancements of that general time frame was Jonas Salk and that polio vaccine. What is the greatest medical advancement of today? Well, there are so many that it is difficult to determine at this time what the greatest advancement is. Eighty years from now, when we look back at our current time, it will be more clear with a historical perspective.

 

[Saints-Man]

Besides spitting on the idea of separation of powers and reasonable suspicion stops

Can you explain this part?

IMO the Constitution puts the issue of immigration and policing in the hands of the federal government. After all, ICE, immigration law, etc. are all governed by federal statutes. Therefore, by my state legislating on an issue designated to the federal government, they are crossing the line between the federal government and the state government and punishing people for violating a federal law the state of Arizona has no jurisdiction to legislate on.

Can Arizona sue the federal government for not performing its duties?(I realize politically this may be counter-productive, but I am asking as a matter of law)

 

[Johnny Ice]

I'm confused. Isn't this the type of "big government" the right warned us about?

Well as long as this doesn't affect people that look like the majority of them, it's fine in their eyes.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There are root causes that need to be dealt with as well. The drug policy in this country needs to change. Taxation policy as well. The immigration issue isn't simply a border issue - that's just where the battles are being fought.

Lets not forget how replacing need base entitlements with a guaranteed income for all citizens would eliminate the disincentives for Americans to compete for low paying jobs.

 

[Saints-Man]

There are root causes that need to be dealt with as well. The drug policy in this country needs to change. Taxation policy as well. The immigration issue isn't simply a border issue - that's just where the battles are being fought.

Lets not forget how replacing need base entitlements with a guaranteed income for all citizens would eliminate the disincentives for Americans to compete for low paying jobs.

And to think that Nixon almost got this passed in 1969. It is interesting to imagine how things would have been different since then.An article about guaranteed income.

 

[timschochet]

Michael Medved pointing out on his radio show today that this law is going to be the death knell for Republicans, possibly as early as this November. He points out that John McCain beat Obama by White Americans by 12%, and that this margin would be hard to improve upon- therefore, if Republicans are going to get enough votes to defeat Democrats in the future, they need to gain these from non-white voters. Historically Republicans have been sucessful in getting around 33% of Hispanic voters (this was higher for Bush.) If this number goes down to 15%, or worse less than 10% (the way it is for African-Americans) there is no means for Republicans to reach high office. He thinks this law is going to completely turn Hispanics against the Republican party if it has not done so already.

I've been arguing this for a long time. This new law is a complete disaster. Those of us who are fiscal conservatives, we're letting the Democrats win because we have allowed these nativists into our midst.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Question for the lawyers: what if a police officer asks for proof of citizenship, but the person refuses to answer? Can he be arrested and/or deported?

 

[Card Trader]

Question for the lawyers: what if a police officer asks for proof of citizenship, but the person refuses to answer? Can he be arrested and/or deported?

Not sure if this answers your questions specifically but some good legalish insight here http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...-questions.html

 

[tommyGunZ]

You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

For the same reasons Americans are asked to walk through metal detectors and wait in security lines at airports.Arizonan is under siege from drug cartels and human traffickers, the Federal govt. isn't doing anything so AZ lawmakers are. Every week there are innocent Arizonans getting killed...not too mention the strain illegals put on our local govt. finances.

Jan Brewer is doing a heck of a job here.

Wow. And you once considered yourself a moderate?

 

[LHUCKS]

You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

For the same reasons Americans are asked to walk through metal detectors and wait in security lines at airports.Arizonan is under siege from drug cartels and human traffickers, the Federal govt. isn't doing anything so AZ lawmakers are. Every week there are innocent Arizonans getting killed...not too mention the strain illegals put on our local govt. finances.

Jan Brewer is doing a heck of a job here.

Wow. And you once considered yourself a moderate?

I've always been issue to issue. As I get older the more fiscally conservative I become.

Definitely a moderate though.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Question for the lawyers: what if a police officer asks for proof of citizenship, but the person refuses to answer? Can he be arrested and/or deported?

Not sure if this answers your questions specifically but some good legalish insight here http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...-questions.html

Unfortunately, that link does not address what would happen if someone asserted their right to remain silent. Hiibel says that a person can be compelled to provide "identification", but it doesn't say if a person must provide enough ID to prove citizenship.

 

[videoguy505]

And if the LEOs make up out of whole cloth the reason to go from 'reasonable suspicion' to 'probable cause', i.e. say something like "when the person got near me, I believed I detected the smell of marijuana" which can sometimes pass for 'probable cause' for a search, once that issue is dealt with (person searched/drug sniffing dog/etc), can the person continue to be detained until alien status is determined, even though such status was unrelated to the original probable cause?

Looks like the earlier linked PDF is just the senate version, guessing this is the full text of the law after the house passed it:http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Anyway, didn't see a direct answer to my question of probable cause, but the text does say if an arrest is made, then the person can be held until alien status is verified. So presumably, if the issue that started the probable cause is resolved, the person cannot be detained just to verify status, right?

 

[tommyGunZ]

You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

For the same reasons Americans are asked to walk through metal detectors and wait in security lines at airports.Arizonan is under siege from drug cartels and human traffickers, the Federal govt. isn't doing anything so AZ lawmakers are. Every week there are innocent Arizonans getting killed...not too mention the strain illegals put on our local govt. finances.

Jan Brewer is doing a heck of a job here.

Wow. And you once considered yourself a moderate?

I've always been issue to issue. As I get older the more fiscally conservative I become. Definitely a moderate though.

Nothing moderate about this bill. When it's found unconstitutional will you admit that you're siding with the right wing fringe on this one?

 

[Zow]

[Agreed on the unconstitutional part, but it might make the issue front and center. But no, really, they are doing nothing IMO.

I guess I just see deportation all the time. I should admit border security is something I don't deal with very often.

 

[Zow]

Question for the lawyers: what if a police officer asks for proof of citizenship, but the person refuses to answer? Can he be arrested and/or deported?

In Arizona I could see him being charged with failure to obey a lawful command (my jurisdiction charged Sonny Barger with this not long ago) or as a stretch Hindering Prosecution. Both are misdemeanors. However, even misdemeanors are arrestable offenses which may trigger an ICE hold and/or have the ability to get a person's ctizenship reduced and deportation possible even if the charges are later dismissed.

 

[videoguy505]

Question for the lawyers: what if a police officer asks for proof of citizenship, but the person refuses to answer? Can he be arrested and/or deported?

In Arizona I could see him being charged with failure to obey a lawful command (my jurisdiction charged Sonny Barger with this not long ago) or as a stretch Hindering Prosecution. Both are misdemeanors. However, even misdemeanors are arrestable offenses which may trigger an ICE hold and/or have the ability to get a person's ctizenship reduced and deportation possible even if the charges are later dismissed.

AZ has a Stop and Identify law:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classificationA. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

ETA: Not a lawyerguy, so in my layman's view, turning over a valid ID/Drivers License/Tribal ID Card would allow the LEO to presume you are a legal citizen/legal alien. Not turning one over puts the onus back on an authorized LEO to verify status through the federal system under the Federal Immigration and Nationality act. If the person asked is a legal alien, and doesn't have their ID on them, they're in violation of federal law, so, they can be charged for that.

 

[Zow]

Question for the lawyers: what if a police officer asks for proof of citizenship, but the person refuses to answer? Can he be arrested and/or deported?

In Arizona I could see him being charged with failure to obey a lawful command (my jurisdiction charged Sonny Barger with this not long ago) or as a stretch Hindering Prosecution. Both are misdemeanors. However, even misdemeanors are arrestable offenses which may trigger an ICE hold and/or have the ability to get a person's ctizenship reduced and deportation possible even if the charges are later dismissed.

AZ has a Stop and Identify law:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

This could work too, although I don't recall seeing this charge ever come across my desk.

 

[Spuds_McKenzie]

You guys do realize this isn't about the rights of the immigrants as much as its about the rights of AMERICANS? Why should an American have to show any proof of his Americaness for just walking down the street or theoretically, sitting in his own living room?

For the same reasons Americans are asked to walk through metal detectors and wait in security lines at airports.Arizonan is under siege from drug cartels and human traffickers, the Federal govt. isn't doing anything so AZ lawmakers are. Every week there are innocent Arizonans getting killed...not too mention the strain illegals put on our local govt. finances.

Jan Brewer is doing a heck of a job here.

Wow. And you once considered yourself a moderate?

I've always been issue to issue. As I get older the more fiscally conservative I become. Definitely a moderate though.

Nothing moderate about this bill. When it's found unconstitutional will you admit that you're siding with the right wing fringe on this one?

What part is unconstitutional? I'd say it's less UNconstitutional than the reqiurement from the Federal Government to purchase health insurance.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

What part is unconstitutional? I'd say it's less UNconstitutional than the reqiurement from the Federal Government to purchase health insurance.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Question for the lawyers: what if a police officer asks for proof of citizenship, but the person refuses to answer? Can he be arrested and/or deported?

In Arizona I could see him being charged with failure to obey a lawful command (my jurisdiction charged Sonny Barger with this not long ago) or as a stretch Hindering Prosecution. Both are misdemeanors. However, even misdemeanors are arrestable offenses which may trigger an ICE hold and/or have the ability to get a person's ctizenship reduced and deportation possible even if the charges are later dismissed.

AZ has a Stop and Identify law:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

I'm just trying to figure out what happens when a person obeys the "Stop And Identify" law, but refuses to show his citizenship paperwork. Such as:Officer: Name and identification, please?

Me: My name is Thomas Q. Gilmore. Here is my driver's license.

Officer: I'll need to see your paperwork proving that you are in this country legally.

Me: I'm not going to say or do anything else without a lawyer present.

What happens then? What if I never say another word, even after being hauled in front of a judge? Will I be deported?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Two of my least favorite things

 

[videoguy505]

Question for the lawyers: what if a police officer asks for proof of citizenship, but the person refuses to answer? Can he be arrested and/or deported?

In Arizona I could see him being charged with failure to obey a lawful command (my jurisdiction charged Sonny Barger with this not long ago) or as a stretch Hindering Prosecution. Both are misdemeanors. However, even misdemeanors are arrestable offenses which may trigger an ICE hold and/or have the ability to get a person's ctizenship reduced and deportation possible even if the charges are later dismissed.

AZ has a Stop and Identify law:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

I'm just trying to figure out what happens when a person obeys the "Stop And Identify" law, but refuses to show his citizenship paperwork. Such as:Officer: Name and identification, please?

Me: My name is Thomas Q. Gilmore. Here is my driver's license.

Officer: I'll need to see your paperwork proving that you are in this country legally.

Me: I'm not going to say or do anything else without a lawyer present.

What happens then? What if I never say another word, even after being hauled in front of a judge? Will I be deported?

Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). I dunno, I've asked similar questions upthread and haven't gotten sure answers. I don't know for sure what happens now, in any state, if you never show any ID when detained/processed/tried. Presumably the cops look you up in a system somewhere until they know who you are.I think, if you don't supply ID, an authorized officer must contact the federal government to verify your status. That's how the law reads to me. It only mentions a presumption of citizenship status "if" you provide valid state or tribal nation ID. I don't know if there's a penalty for refusing to show ID. The section of the US Code cited on page 5 of this thread, which states all aliens must carry ID at all times, doesn't say anything about requiring them to show it.

 

[phthalatemagic]

The potential problem with this law is that it will inevitably target Latinos.

No. The potential problem with this law is that it violates the 4th Amendment for everyone. I know you are lobbying to be the patron saint of Mexican immigrants, but perhaps you can broaden your perspective for a bit.

I'm not lobbying to be the saint of anyone.

And yes, you may be right, but the primary people it will affect will be Latinos. Just look at the post right above yours where somebody is hoping they'll start IDing the "protesters". I think some people have completely lost their perspective out of fear of illegals.

You don't need to fear illegals. The vast majority are here to work hard and improve their lives. In so doing, they improve all of us as well. To be so fearful and unaccepting is frankly, unAmerican. We should welcome these people with open arms and help them if we can. In return, they will make us a better nation. If we try to keep them out or remove them or punish people who employ them, we make ourselves worse, and it won't work anyhow. Just accept the inevitable.

 

[videoguy505]

Two of my least favorite things

On the sidewalk, beans were used to write "AZ=Nazi," again with a swastika.

It's not clear when exactly the vandalism happened, but police believe it was some time overnight.

"That is what happens when there is so much fear and there is so much disappointment," said Gustavo Ramirez, a protester from California. "The laws that have been passed, they are Nazi laws. They are not considering humanity. They are a crime against humanity."

Nice to see Godwin's Law works just as fast in the real world.But I still don't get the comparison. Near as I can tell from my non-lawyerguy read of the law, all it really does is take away discretion from the police, and compels them to enforce current laws. Not much substantive "new" law in this law, it kind of just compels the police to strictly follow already existing laws according to a specific interpretation (that sneaking into the country illegally is a crime that can be investigated just like any other). But if there's something I'm missing, I'm open to discussing it. But if the intention was to make police follow the laws already written, I can't think of any other way to phrase a bill.

 

[timschochet]

The potential problem with this law is that it will inevitably target Latinos.

No. The potential problem with this law is that it violates the 4th Amendment for everyone. I know you are lobbying to be the patron saint of Mexican immigrants, but perhaps you can broaden your perspective for a bit.

I'm not lobbying to be the saint of anyone.

And yes, you may be right, but the primary people it will affect will be Latinos. Just look at the post right above yours where somebody is hoping they'll start IDing the "protesters". I think some people have completely lost their perspective out of fear of illegals.

You don't need to fear illegals. The vast majority are here to work hard and improve their lives. In so doing, they improve all of us as well. To be so fearful and unaccepting is frankly, unAmerican. We should welcome these people with open arms and help them if we can. In return, they will make us a better nation. If we try to keep them out or remove them or punish people who employ them, we make ourselves worse, and it won't work anyhow. Just accept the inevitable.

I can see why you might disagree with me on this (many people do) but why do you find it so funny?

 

[Da Guru]

Health care law passed and we deal with it even though people were not happy.

Arizona passes immigration reform and we have to deal with it as well.

Respect our government. They know what is right for us.

 

[timschochet]

Health care law passed and we deal with it even though people were not happy.Arizona passes immigration reform and we have to deal with it as well.Respect our government. They know what is right for us.

I was opposed to the healthcare bill, but it was neither offensive or unAmerican. This law is both.

 

[videoguy505]

What's the legal basis for ACLU's beef?

Might as well answer this myself, dug this up:http://www.acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20...d%204-14-10.pdf

Will for later.

ETA: initial skim shows a few 'this is unnecessary because there's already a federal law for it' things, but some of their items of dispute are interesting angles.