let's be even more clear. it's not just that you have to produce proof of your citizenship (which creates a reverse onus) but that the police are empowered and indeed directed to stop and question those who they suspect may be illegal.
anyone who can't see this is wrong, wrong, wrong is blind.
This is the "profiling" part that I have repeatedly said is wrong.
That doesn't make the law itself, or the enforcement of legal immigration wrong.
actually, that does make the law itself defective.
here is the crux of the matter: how is a cop supposed to know when he has "reasonable suspicion" that someone is in the country illegally? short of someone going up to a cop and announcing themselves as an alien, how on earth are cops going to apply this law in practice without placing race at the forefront?
theoretically an illegal alien could be from any country and could have any kind of appearance but this is arizona where the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come from mexico, are brown skinned and speak spanish. so is being a brown person in a home hardware parking lot a cause for reasonable suspicion?
immigration enforcement is a legtimate goal but again this law does not rationally address that issue and worst, worst of all is that it is disproportionate and creates an evil far greater than the one it supposedly addresses.. law enforcement is not supposed to use a sledgehammer to crack nuts.
the fact is, we will see how the law is applied or misapplied in the coming months when it comes into force, but if i were latino, i'd be moving the fuck out that state stat. damn. scary times we live in.
Not true. The most common form of legal ID = a drivers license. Most acceptable forms of ID do not show citizenship.
I was under the impression that you had to be a citizen to get a driver's license?
I know it's true in California, Texas and Arizona.
You are wrong.
When I lived in Arizona going to school, we were able to get an AZ license no problem. Not only that, but when you drive over the border, if the border guard asks you for proof of citizenship, a DL will not do because it doesn't say your citizenship anywhere. And I don't think it was for Texas at one point either. My mom had a Texas DL when we lived there and she wasn't even a permanent resident.
Funny. When I was living down in AZ I got pulled over once for speeding. Officer asked me if I knew how fast I was going. My reply was (While playing dumb) yes, but only in kilometers, because the car I was driving didn't have MPH in the dash. He was blown away that it didn't. But told me I need to learn the conversion for driving and let me go. No further questions asked. No asking me to prove my citizenship or anything close to if I was there legally...
Not true. The most common form of legal ID = a drivers license. Most acceptable forms of ID do not show citizenship.
I was under the impression that you had to be a citizen to get a driver's license?
I know it's true in California, Texas and Arizona.
You are wrong.
When I lived in Arizona going to school, we were able to get an AZ license no problem. Not only that, but when you drive over the border, if the border guard asks you for proof of citizenship, a DL will not do because it doesn't say your citizenship anywhere. And I don't think it was for Texas at one point either. My mom had a Texas DL when we lived there and she wasn't even a permanent resident.
Funny. When I was living down in AZ I got pulled over once for speeding. Officer asked me if I knew how fast I was going. My reply was (While playing dumb) yes, but only in kilometers, because the car I was driving didn't have MPH in the dash. He was blown away that it didn't. But told me I need to learn the conversion for driving and let me go. No further questions asked. No asking me to prove my citizenship or anything close to if I was there legally...
Not true. The most common form of legal ID = a drivers license. Most acceptable forms of ID do not show citizenship.
I was under the impression that you had to be a citizen to get a driver's license?
I know it's true in California, Texas and Arizona.
You are wrong.
When I lived in Arizona going to school, we were able to get an AZ license no problem. Not only that, but when you drive over the border, if the border guard asks you for proof of citizenship, a DL will not do because it doesn't say your citizenship anywhere. And I don't think it was for Texas at one point either. My mom had a Texas DL when we lived there and she wasn't even a permanent resident.
Funny. When I was living down in AZ I got pulled over once for speeding. Officer asked me if I knew how fast I was going. My reply was (While playing dumb) yes, but only in kilometers, because the car I was driving didn't have MPH in the dash. He was blown away that it didn't. But told me I need to learn the conversion for driving and let me go. No further questions asked. No asking me to prove my citizenship or anything close to if I was there legally...
Only seven states ? Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington ? allow undocumented immigrants to get driver?s licenses.
Well, I have zero doubt laws have changed. But I still don't think a DL is a form of proof of citizenship. Being in the state with a student visa or permanent residency (With a state DL) is different than having citizenship.
Not true. The most common form of legal ID = a drivers license. Most acceptable forms of ID do not show citizenship.
I was under the impression that you had to be a citizen to get a driver's license?
I know it's true in California, Texas and Arizona.
You are wrong.
When I lived in Arizona going to school, we were able to get an AZ license no problem. Not only that, but when you drive over the border, if the border guard asks you for proof of citizenship, a DL will not do because it doesn't say your citizenship anywhere. And I don't think it was for Texas at one point either. My mom had a Texas DL when we lived there and she wasn't even a permanent resident.
Funny. When I was living down in AZ I got pulled over once for speeding. Officer asked me if I knew how fast I was going. My reply was (While playing dumb) yes, but only in kilometers, because the car I was driving didn't have MPH in the dash. He was blown away that it didn't. But told me I need to learn the conversion for driving and let me go. No further questions asked. No asking me to prove my citizenship or anything close to if I was there legally...
Only seven states ? Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington ? allow undocumented immigrants to get driver?s licenses.
Well, I have zero doubt laws have changed. But I still don't think a DL is a form of proof of citizenship. Being in the state with a student visa or permanent residency (With a state DL) is different than having citizenship.
You can argue that one with O....
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:
1. A valid Arizona driver license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Not true. The most common form of legal ID = a drivers license. Most acceptable forms of ID do not show citizenship.
I was under the impression that you had to be a citizen to get a driver's license?
I know it's true in California, Texas and Arizona.
You are wrong.
When I lived in Arizona going to school, we were able to get an AZ license no problem. Not only that, but when you drive over the border, if the border guard asks you for proof of citizenship, a DL will not do because it doesn't say your citizenship anywhere. And I don't think it was for Texas at one point either. My mom had a Texas DL when we lived there and she wasn't even a permanent resident.
Funny. When I was living down in AZ I got pulled over once for speeding. Officer asked me if I knew how fast I was going. My reply was (While playing dumb) yes, but only in kilometers, because the car I was driving didn't have MPH in the dash. He was blown away that it didn't. But told me I need to learn the conversion for driving and let me go. No further questions asked. No asking me to prove my citizenship or anything close to if I was there legally...
Only seven states ? Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington ? allow undocumented immigrants to get driver?s licenses.
Well, I have zero doubt laws have changed. But I still don't think a DL is a form of proof of citizenship. Being in the state with a student visa or permanent residency (With a state DL) is different than having citizenship.
You can argue that one with O....
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:
1. A valid Arizona driver license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
According to the azdot.gov/mvd site. You can get a DL with 2 forms of ID which can include a foreign passport with a valid visa and a credit card.
"38) What is needed for a person from another country to drive in Arizona?
You may legally drive in Arizona using a valid driver license from another country. An International Driving License or Permit is not required, but is recommended since it can be printed in English, and can be used in conjunction with the driver license from the other country. If an International Driving License or Permit is used alone, it must be issued by a country other than the United States. Vehicle rental companies may have additional requirements.
However, Arizona law requires that you obtain an Arizona driver license (and vehicle registration) immediately if any one of the following applies. If you:
1. Work in Arizona (other than for seasonal agricultural work) -or- 2. Are registered to vote in Arizona -or- 3. Place children in school without paying the tuition rate of a nonresident -or- 4. Have a business that has an office in Arizona, and that bases and operates vehicles in this state -or- 5. Obtain a state license or pay school tuition fees at the same rate as an Arizona resident -or- 6. Have a business that operates vehicles to transport goods or passengers within Arizona -or- 7. Remain in Arizona for a total of 7 months or more during any calendar year, regardless of your permanent residence.[/b]
Out-of-state students enrolled with 7 or more semester hours are not considered Arizona residents, regardless of employment.
Active duty military personnel based in Arizona who qualify for exemption under the Service Members Civil Relief Act of 2003 are not considered Arizona residents."
Since a visa will run out almost always before your DL will expire (Arizona issues driver's licenses that expire on the 65th birthday.). It's pretty easy to have a DL without any form of legal status in AZ.
There was a time, not that long ago, in this country when, you were innocent until proven guilty and you were not required to carry or show the authorities any ID. If you were white.
Those days are over.
The question now is may local police officers jail you on suspicion of being in the country illegally?
totally plausible scenario....naturalized/or natural born hispanic citizen is doing some work on his house, realizes he needs more wood screws...wife drives him to Home Depot because she has to pick something else up from somewhere else, so she drops him off at Home Depot and she goes and runs her errand, dude is in work clothes, forgets his wallet, wifey gives him a few bucks for the wood screws...so the guy is out front of Home Depot waiting for his wife...hispanic, in work clothes, no ID...he hasnt done ANYTHING illegal...cop sees this scenario, interprets as "illegal looking for work" and asks for ID/proof of citizenship, dude doesnt have any, dude is detained...so is this considered an "acceptable risk", detaining people not doing anything wrong at all, in hopes of catching an illegal? Why should dude working on his house suffer for the simple fact he has brown skin? White dude in the same scenario would not be questioned and left alone....how is this law not immoral?
Wanna hear about the time a cop asked me why I was out so late(9:00PM) a block from my house and when I made the freudian slip that I was out getting a "pack of rolling....oops" instead of a "Roll Of Packing Tape" my car was torn apart and I was detained......or the time a cop asked me if I had ever been to Prison and when I said no he said "Never? and basically called me a liar"?? Or the time I was pulled over because I fit the description of a murder suspect and the cops followed me home to stake me out......big friggin Waaaambulance. eh.
How is any of this similar to going to jail for not producing a birth certificate?
OMG THIS COP LIKE TOTALLY KINDA CALLED ME A LIAR, FUSK!!!!!!!!!!!
Wanna hear about the time a cop asked me why I was out so late(9:00PM) a block from my house and when I made the freudian slip that I was out getting a "pack of rolling....oops" instead of a "Roll Of Packing Tape" my car was torn apart and I was detained......or the time a cop asked me if I had ever been to Prison and when I said no he said "Never? and basically called me a liar"?? Or the time I was pulled over because I fit the description of a murder suspect and the cops followed me home to stake me out......big friggin Waaaambulance. eh.
How is any of this similar to going to jail for not producing a birth certificate?
OMG THIS COP LIKE TOTALLY KINDA CALLED ME A LIAR, FUSK!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right...they are not similar....one of them has actually happened.
Wanna hear about the time a cop asked me why I was out so late(9:00PM) a block from my house and when I made the freudian slip that I was out getting a "pack of rolling....oops" instead of a "Roll Of Packing Tape" my car was torn apart and I was detained......or the time a cop asked me if I had ever been to Prison and when I said no he said "Never? and basically called me a liar"?? Or the time I was pulled over because I fit the description of a murder suspect and the cops followed me home to stake me out......big friggin Waaaambulance. eh.
How is any of this similar to going to jail for not producing a birth certificate?
OMG THIS COP LIKE TOTALLY KINDA CALLED ME A LIAR, FUSK!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right...they are not similar....one of them has actually happened.
Wanna hear about the time a cop asked me why I was out so late(9:00PM) a block from my house and when I made the freudian slip that I was out getting a "pack of rolling....oops" instead of a "Roll Of Packing Tape" my car was torn apart and I was detained......or the time a cop asked me if I had ever been to Prison and when I said no he said "Never? and basically called me a liar"?? Or the time I was pulled over because I fit the description of a murder suspect and the cops followed me home to stake me out......big friggin Waaaambulance. eh.
How is any of this similar to going to jail for not producing a birth certificate?
OMG THIS COP LIKE TOTALLY KINDA CALLED ME A LIAR, FUSK!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right...they are not similar....one of them has actually happened.
"A Latino truck driver outside Phoenix was taken into custody by law enforcement at a weigh station. He pulled in to have the truck looked at, was apparently approached by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and asked for ID. He showed them his commercial driver?s license. They asked him for more ID. He told them his social security number. They cuffed him took him to the central office in Phoenix and called his wife to bring his social security card and birth certificate. The man is identifying himself to media only as ?Abdon? and he is an American citizen born in the USA."
Wanna hear about the time a cop asked me why I was out so late(9:00PM) a block from my house and when I made the freudian slip that I was out getting a "pack of rolling....oops" instead of a "Roll Of Packing Tape" my car was torn apart and I was detained......or the time a cop asked me if I had ever been to Prison and when I said no he said "Never? and basically called me a liar"?? Or the time I was pulled over because I fit the description of a murder suspect and the cops followed me home to stake me out......big friggin Waaaambulance. eh.
How is any of this similar to going to jail for not producing a birth certificate?
OMG THIS COP LIKE TOTALLY KINDA CALLED ME A LIAR, FUSK!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right...they are not similar....one of them has actually happened.
I certainly do not support what was done to this gentleman by Federal authorities. On the surface it appears to be a gross misuse of power. If indeed his rights were abused I hope he sues ICE and is rewarded handsomely.
This had nothing to do with the new Arizona immigration law, and if it did, and the law was applied correctly, he would have satisfied authorities by producing his license.
Those in power of authority who abuse or misapply said power should be releived of their duties. Those who use their power for criminal means should be prosecuted.
Within every law enforcement agent lies the possibility of them abusing their power and not following the letter of the law. This doesn't mean you throw out the law, you throw out the abuser.
Profiling, or worse, misuse of the law(Like what appears happened to "Abdon") I find wholly unacceptable.
For those who can't deal with that take comfort in knowing that I'm simply not as smart as you.
I have spent over 50 years in the law-enforcement profession in the Tucson community, the past 30 of which I have served as sheriff. I have seen relations between our community and law enforcement personnel shift with the times: sometimes challenged when the actions of a few police officers cross the line, and often improving when there is a sense of partnership. But in the past few weeks Arizona became a model for the rest of the country of what not to do.
The immigration reform law that was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23 effectively requires that immigrants be able to prove their legal presence in the state of Arizona. I have argued from the moment that this bill was signed that it is unnecessary, that it is a travesty, and most significantly, that it is unconstitutional.
Pima County, where I am sheriff, shares 123 miles of border with Mexico. Patrolling this area for illegal immigrants is like trying to keep water from passing through a sieve.
I have always believed that the federal government, charged with the task of regulating immigration into the United States, bears the responsibility for this task. However, it has also never been the policy of my department to ignore the existence of those that are in this country illegally. That's why my deputies are instructed that if they come in contact with an illegal immigrant they should detain him, contact Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and turn him over to federal authorities.
My deputies have referred more illegal immigrants to Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement than any other state or local law enforcement agency in Arizona. But this new law will pass the burden of immigration enforcement to my county department. This is a responsibility I do not have the resources to implement.
The more fundamental problem with the law is its vague language. It requires law enforcement officials to demand papers from an individual when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that he is an illegal immigrant. The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed . . . with certain inalienable rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those who look "suspiciously" like illegal immigrants will find their liberty in severe jeopardy and their pursuit of happiness disrupted?even if they are citizens or have lived, worked, paid taxes, and maybe even have served in our Armed Forces for decades.
When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated. In the case of identifying illegal immigrants, the ambiguity of what this "crime" looks like risks including an individual's appearance, which would seem to violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Such ambiguity is especially dangerous when prescribed to an issue as fraught with emotion as that of illegal immigration.
I have an enormous amount of respect for the men and women of my department?the deputy sheriffs who respond to calls for assistance throughout Pima County every day of the week. I have no doubt that they make intelligent, compassionate and reasonable decisions countless times throughout their shifts. But no one can tell them what an illegal immigrant looks like and when it is ok to begin questioning a person along those lines. This law puts them in a no-win situation: They will be forced to offend and anger someone who is perhaps a citizen or here legally when they ask to see his papers?or be accused of nonfeasance because they do not.
There is a horrible problem with illegal immigration in this country, and it affects the citizens of Pima County every single day. Because of our proximity to the border, our county population demographic is heavily Hispanic (both legal and illegal). That means we must interact with witnesses and victims of crime in their times of need, regardless of their immigration status. Though this legislation states that inquiry into a person's immigration status is not required if it will hinder an investigation, that's not enough to quell the very real fears of the immigrant community.
Law enforcement did not ask for and does not need this new tool. What we do need is assistance from the federal government in the form of effective strategies to secure the border. Additionally, the federal government must take up this issue in the form of comprehensive immigration reform policy. If any good is to come from this firestorm, it is that our legislators will finally recognize that a problem exists and that they are the only ones with the authority to address it.
Those in power of authority who abuse or misapply said power should be releived of their duties. Those who use their power for criminal means should be prosecuted.
THIS is kind of my problem with the famed "rock-a-logic".
You say this shit like it happens.
Of course it should happen, but you and I both know well that it doesn't.
Police are empowered with the ability and the right to take your life - far worse than taking you in for jaywalking with long hair. Far too many times it has happened for what ended up being the wrong reasons or the wrong suspicions. Rockadelic talks about how that doesn't compare to the times that police take lives (or have their lives taken) for the right reasons. To me, there is no comparison.
Every time a police takes a life for a mere suspicion, for a prejudice, for a mistaken identity or assumption... is one too many. Many times one too many, if we're keeping score. Some folks consider it "breaking a few eggs to make an omelette". That's an omelette I want no part of.
This law is wrong because it empowers police - often good but occasionally bad HUMANS who have a significant margin of error - to do unconstitutional, flat-out WRONG things. If you trust the police to do the right thing, you probably don't think that this law is all that bad. I get the feeling this is how Rockadelic views it. If you *don't* trust the police to do the right thing, especially when it concerns people of different skin tones, languages, and backgrounds... well you probably hate this law and hope it gets struck down in court. That's where I'm at. I don't think there's really much more to it.
All the other shit in this thread is just dancing.
Those in power of authority who abuse or misapply said power should be releived of their duties. Those who use their power for criminal means should be prosecuted.
THIS is kind of my problem with the famed "rock-a-logic".
You say this shit like it happens.
Of course it should happen, but you and I both know well that it doesn't.
Police are empowered with the ability and the right to take your life - far worse than taking you in for jaywalking with long hair. Far too many times it has happened for what ended up being the wrong reasons or the wrong suspicions. Rockadelic talks about how that doesn't compare to the times that police take lives (or have their lives taken) for the right reasons. To me, there is no comparison.
Every time a police takes a life for a mere suspicion, for a prejudice, for a mistaken identity or assumption... is one too many. Many times one too many, if we're keeping score. Some folks consider it "breaking a few eggs to make an omelette". That's an omelette I want no part of.
This law is wrong because it empowers police - often good but occasionally bad HUMANS who have a significant margin of error - to do unconstitutional, flat-out WRONG things. If you trust the police to do the right thing, you probably don't think that this law is all that bad. I get the feeling this is how Rockadelic views it. If you *don't* trust the police to do the right thing, especially when it concerns people of different skin tones, languages, and backgrounds... well you probably hate this law and hope it gets struck down in court. That's where I'm at. I don't think there's really much more to it.
All the other shit in this thread is just dancing.
Two policeman were fired this week in Fort Worth, Texas for disciniplary reasons.....acting like this DOESN'T happen is either ignorant or biased.
my question: what are the chances this draconian law is struck down by the courts as unconstitutional?
With the Roberts' court, it's hard to say. Not as much of a slam dunk as we might have seen in previous courts. That said, I think the Justice Dept. probably has a better case to make since I really don't understand how this decision does NOT lead to racial profiling.
So, you don't understand how the passage of a bill that explicitly prohibits racial profiling does not lead to racial profiling? work on it, hoe.
oh i get, because there is some lip-service provision that says race cannot be the only factor taken into account then i guess this law could never lead to racial profiling, undue harassment, or interference with basic fucking civil liberties like being able to walk down the street peacefully without being harassed and interrogated by law enforcement.
what is going to be the criteria on which the police will base their reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant: the type of clothes they wear, if they see someone standing in a home hardware parking lot or if there is a family of latinos in a minivan driving to soccer practice. in short, what does an illegal immigrant look like? the fact is that in arizona illegal immigrants are predominantly latino and this law is squarely targeted at them. so just being latino is not enough to be stopped but being latino in conjunction with another completely lawful factor (such as manner of dress, being in a home hardware parking lot, or in a minivan with 10 other latinos on their way to take the kids to soccer practice) could do it.
the purpose of the law, which is to stem the tide of illegal immigrants in the state may or may not be legitimate but this law is not rationally connected to achieving that goal and worst of all it completely overreaches and is disproportionate to the harm it intends to prevent.
i am semi-shocked that we live in an era where such an immoral law could be passed.
Yet another fool who hasn't read the bill. The law doesn't enable officers to stop someone merely because they think they might be an illegal immigrant.
Look, I could accept people not reading the health care bill, it was thousands of pages long. This bill on the other hand is roughly three sides of A4 and can be read in two minutes.
In future i'd appreciate it if people prefaced their post with a statement of whether they've actually read the bill or not. It's tiresome to keep reading the exact same misstatements time and time again.
you're so full of yourself and your confidence is completely misplaced
here is the main provision of the act, you explain how what i said is incorrect:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
That is the old version of the bill. The revised version reads
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 who 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. 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). 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. 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: 1. A valid Arizona driver license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
It's amazing all the outrage that has been generated by a law that calls for officers to attempt to establish whether a law has been broken if they suspect it has been broken. What else would you have them do?
Of course police suspicions may be misplaced or even in some cases entirely manufactured, but how is that not the case for any other law? Y'all seem to interpret this as a licence for rogue cops to engage in harassment but there are any other number of existing laws and police powers far more open to abuse. Look at the presumption of legal residence as defined by the law. It is far and away easier for an Az resident to demonstrate legal residence than it is that they weren't loitering with intent or otherwise 'acting suspiciously'. If a cop wants to be a prick there are much better methods than those offered by this law and as such the fear on display, or that which is being affected at least, is totally misplaced
Comments
actually, that does make the law itself defective.
here is the crux of the matter: how is a cop supposed to know when he has "reasonable suspicion" that someone is in the country illegally? short of someone going up to a cop and announcing themselves as an alien, how on earth are cops going to apply this law in practice without placing race at the forefront?
theoretically an illegal alien could be from any country and could have any kind of appearance but this is arizona where the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come from mexico, are brown skinned and speak spanish. so is being a brown person in a home hardware parking lot a cause for reasonable suspicion?
immigration enforcement is a legtimate goal but again this law does not rationally address that issue and worst, worst of all is that it is disproportionate and creates an evil far greater than the one it supposedly addresses.. law enforcement is not supposed to use a sledgehammer to crack nuts.
the fact is, we will see how the law is applied or misapplied in the coming months when it comes into force, but if i were latino, i'd be moving the fuck out that state stat. damn. scary times we live in.
You are wrong.
When I lived in Arizona going to school, we were able to get an AZ license no problem. Not only that, but when you drive over the border, if the border guard asks you for proof of citizenship, a DL will not do because it doesn't say your citizenship anywhere. And I don't think it was for Texas at one point either. My mom had a Texas DL when we lived there and she wasn't even a permanent resident.
Funny. When I was living down in AZ I got pulled over once for speeding. Officer asked me if I knew how fast I was going. My reply was (While playing dumb) yes, but only in kilometers, because the car I was driving didn't have MPH in the dash. He was blown away that it didn't. But told me I need to learn the conversion for driving and let me go. No further questions asked. No asking me to prove my citizenship or anything close to if I was there legally...
You were in the country/state legally.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=234828
Only seven states ? Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington ? allow undocumented immigrants to get driver?s licenses.
WOW THIS IS SOME SERIOUSLY INSULTING BULLSHIT.
Well, I have zero doubt laws have changed. But I still don't think a DL is a form of proof of citizenship. Being in the state with a student visa or permanent residency (With a state DL) is different than having citizenship.
You can argue that one with O....
Dude...at least make them funny....
Q: How many Mexicans does it take to play a Banjo?
A: None, No self respecting human would play a friggin Banjo.
At least their logo promotes truth in advertising.
I wonder how many members they claim?
According to the azdot.gov/mvd site. You can get a DL with 2 forms of ID which can include a foreign passport with a valid visa and a credit card.
Also
http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/scripts/faqsresponse.asp?category=1&keyword=
"38) What is needed for a person from another country to drive in Arizona?
You may legally drive in Arizona using a valid driver license from another country. An International Driving License or Permit is not required, but is recommended since it can be printed in English, and can be used in conjunction with the driver license from the other country. If an International Driving License or Permit is used alone, it must be issued by a country other than the United States. Vehicle rental companies may have additional requirements.
However, Arizona law requires that you obtain an Arizona driver license (and vehicle registration) immediately if any one of the following applies. If you:
1. Work in Arizona (other than for seasonal agricultural work) -or-
2. Are registered to vote in Arizona -or-
3. Place children in school without paying the tuition rate of a nonresident -or-
4. Have a business that has an office in Arizona, and that bases and operates vehicles in this state -or-
5. Obtain a state license or pay school tuition fees at the same rate as an Arizona resident -or-
6. Have a business that operates vehicles to transport goods or passengers within Arizona -or-
7. Remain in Arizona for a total of 7 months or more during any calendar year, regardless of your permanent residence.[/b]
Out-of-state students enrolled with 7 or more semester hours are not considered Arizona residents, regardless of employment.
Active duty military personnel based in Arizona who qualify for exemption under the Service Members Civil Relief Act of 2003 are not considered Arizona residents."
Since a visa will run out almost always before your DL will expire (Arizona issues driver's licenses that expire on the 65th birthday.). It's pretty easy to have a DL without any form of legal status in AZ.
Consider the source.
Those days are over.
The question now is may local police officers jail you on suspicion of being in the country illegally?
Is that the country we want to live in?
I know what my answer is.
well put.
How is any of this similar to going to jail for not producing a birth certificate?
OMG THIS COP LIKE TOTALLY KINDA CALLED ME A LIAR, FUSK!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/2010/05/04/20100504phoenix-suns-los-suns-jerseys.html
You're right...they are not similar....one of them has actually happened.
http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new...rth-certificate
"A Latino truck driver outside Phoenix was taken into custody by law enforcement at a weigh station. He pulled in to have the truck looked at, was apparently approached by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and asked for ID. He showed them his commercial driver?s license. They asked him for more ID. He told them his social security number. They cuffed him took him to the central office in Phoenix and called his wife to bring his social security card and birth certificate. The man is identifying himself to media only as ?Abdon? and he is an American citizen born in the USA."
I certainly do not support what was done to this gentleman by Federal authorities. On the surface it appears to be a gross misuse of power. If indeed his rights were abused I hope he sues ICE and is rewarded handsomely.
This had nothing to do with the new Arizona immigration law, and if it did, and the law was applied correctly, he would have satisfied authorities by producing his license.
Those in power of authority who abuse or misapply said power should be releived of their duties. Those who use their power for criminal means should be prosecuted.
Within every law enforcement agent lies the possibility of them abusing their power and not following the letter of the law. This doesn't mean you throw out the law, you throw out the abuser.
Profiling, or worse, misuse of the law(Like what appears happened to "Abdon") I find wholly unacceptable.
For those who can't deal with that take comfort in knowing that I'm simply not as smart as you.
I have spent over 50 years in the law-enforcement profession in the Tucson community, the past 30 of which I have served as sheriff. I have seen relations between our community and law enforcement personnel shift with the times: sometimes challenged when the actions of a few police officers cross the line, and often improving when there is a sense of partnership. But in the past few weeks Arizona became a model for the rest of the country of what not to do.
The immigration reform law that was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23 effectively requires that immigrants be able to prove their legal presence in the state of Arizona. I have argued from the moment that this bill was signed that it is unnecessary, that it is a travesty, and most significantly, that it is unconstitutional.
Pima County, where I am sheriff, shares 123 miles of border with Mexico. Patrolling this area for illegal immigrants is like trying to keep water from passing through a sieve.
I have always believed that the federal government, charged with the task of regulating immigration into the United States, bears the responsibility for this task. However, it has also never been the policy of my department to ignore the existence of those that are in this country illegally. That's why my deputies are instructed that if they come in contact with an illegal immigrant they should detain him, contact Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and turn him over to federal authorities.
My deputies have referred more illegal immigrants to Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement than any other state or local law enforcement agency in Arizona. But this new law will pass the burden of immigration enforcement to my county department. This is a responsibility I do not have the resources to implement.
The more fundamental problem with the law is its vague language. It requires law enforcement officials to demand papers from an individual when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that he is an illegal immigrant. The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed . . . with certain inalienable rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those who look "suspiciously" like illegal immigrants will find their liberty in severe jeopardy and their pursuit of happiness disrupted?even if they are citizens or have lived, worked, paid taxes, and maybe even have served in our Armed Forces for decades.
When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated. In the case of identifying illegal immigrants, the ambiguity of what this "crime" looks like risks including an individual's appearance, which would seem to violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Such ambiguity is especially dangerous when prescribed to an issue as fraught with emotion as that of illegal immigration.
I have an enormous amount of respect for the men and women of my department?the deputy sheriffs who respond to calls for assistance throughout Pima County every day of the week. I have no doubt that they make intelligent, compassionate and reasonable decisions countless times throughout their shifts. But no one can tell them what an illegal immigrant looks like and when it is ok to begin questioning a person along those lines. This law puts them in a no-win situation: They will be forced to offend and anger someone who is perhaps a citizen or here legally when they ask to see his papers?or be accused of nonfeasance because they do not.
There is a horrible problem with illegal immigration in this country, and it affects the citizens of Pima County every single day. Because of our proximity to the border, our county population demographic is heavily Hispanic (both legal and illegal). That means we must interact with witnesses and victims of crime in their times of need, regardless of their immigration status. Though this legislation states that inquiry into a person's immigration status is not required if it will hinder an investigation, that's not enough to quell the very real fears of the immigrant community.
Law enforcement did not ask for and does not need this new tool. What we do need is assistance from the federal government in the form of effective strategies to secure the border. Additionally, the federal government must take up this issue in the form of comprehensive immigration reform policy. If any good is to come from this firestorm, it is that our legislators will finally recognize that a problem exists and that they are the only ones with the authority to address it.
Mr. Dupnik is the sheriff of Pima County Tucson, Ariz."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...latestheadlines
THIS is kind of my problem with the famed "rock-a-logic".
You say this shit like it happens.
Of course it should happen, but you and I both know well that it doesn't.
Police are empowered with the ability and the right to take your life - far worse than taking you in for jaywalking with long hair. Far too many times it has happened for what ended up being the wrong reasons or the wrong suspicions. Rockadelic talks about how that doesn't compare to the times that police take lives (or have their lives taken) for the right reasons. To me, there is no comparison.
Every time a police takes a life for a mere suspicion, for a prejudice, for a mistaken identity or assumption... is one too many. Many times one too many, if we're keeping score. Some folks consider it "breaking a few eggs to make an omelette". That's an omelette I want no part of.
This law is wrong because it empowers police - often good but occasionally bad HUMANS who have a significant margin of error - to do unconstitutional, flat-out WRONG things. If you trust the police to do the right thing, you probably don't think that this law is all that bad. I get the feeling this is how Rockadelic views it. If you *don't* trust the police to do the right thing, especially when it concerns people of different skin tones, languages, and backgrounds... well you probably hate this law and hope it gets struck down in court. That's where I'm at. I don't think there's really much more to it.
All the other shit in this thread is just dancing.
Two policeman were fired this week in Fort Worth, Texas for disciniplary reasons.....acting like this DOESN'T happen is either ignorant or biased.
The head of the Hackensack PD was fired last week but it was for internal reasons.
Again, you're dancing. And no offense, but I'm married, huss.
That is the old version of the bill. The revised version reads
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 who 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. 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). 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. 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:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Of course police suspicions may be misplaced or even in some cases entirely manufactured, but how is that not the case for any other law? Y'all seem to interpret this as a licence for rogue cops to engage in harassment but there are any other number of existing laws and police powers far more open to abuse. Look at the presumption of legal residence as defined by the law. It is far and away easier for an Az resident to demonstrate legal residence than it is that they weren't loitering with intent or otherwise 'acting suspiciously'. If a cop wants to be a prick there are much better methods than those offered by this law and as such the fear on display, or that which is being affected at least, is totally misplaced