News: Majority American supports AZ immigration law

[Chibibar]

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/13/2747051/poll-majority-of-americans-back.html

Interesting Poll. I would love to see the breakdown on the poll of 69% that people wouldn't mind if the police officer stop them to ask for their ID.

Being Asian, I might not get stop as much in Texas, but maybe in Cali or New York where large influx of Asian coming in.

But my Hispanic friends wouldn't like being stop all the time if the police "thinks" they are illegal.

I wonder how would those 69% would mind after being stop everyday at least once for 2 weeks.

 

[blotsfan]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

 

[GasBandit]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

Yes.

But critics and opponents say the wording of the bill means it "could" be interpreted as letting officers pull over motorists for being brown.

 

[Dave]

It's only for those who are "reasonable to assume" are illegals. So an illegal immigrant wife gets beaten by her illegal immigrant husband. Should she call the cops? If she does and he's shown as being illegal, they have reasonable suspicion that she might be and they could check her out, too.

So people will be loath to report crimes against them if they are not legit or if they are worried they will be hassled.

 

[Troll]

As with all polls, I would want to know the exact phrasing used in the questions. That can greatly affect the results. Still, it's interesting.

 

[Chibibar]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

Yes.

But critics and opponents say the wording of the bill means it "could" be interpreted as letting officers pull over motorists for being brown.[/QUOTE]

actually the AZ law states that an officer can "suspect" of illegal. you can just drive around and the officer can "suspect you" or heck lets say you are walking, they can suspect you and then ask you to show proof.

The other state there is an actual clause they CAN'T do that unless the suspect is involve in another "crime"

 

[Espy]

It's only for those who are "reasonable to assume" are illegals. So an illegal immigrant wife gets beaten by her illegal immigrant husband. Should she call the cops? If she does and he's shown as being illegal, they have reasonable suspicion that she might be and they could check her out, too.

So people will be loath to report crimes against them if they are not legit or if they are worried they will be hassled.

This is true and a rather unescapable side effect of being in a country illegally. There are consequences to being in a country illegally that will affect one's life should they chose to do so. Notice I'm not advocating that the woman in a scenario like this be shipped off for merely reporting a crime (in fact I differ from most of my conservative brethren on this issue), but it is part of the reality of breaking the law. I'm honestly not sure how else to do it... but I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Chibibar]

I believe the immigration issue has to change in two folds.

Getting IN the country legally is truly pain the butt (from my friends who are FINALLY U.S. citizens after 10+ years of stay)
A process to ship people out of the country if they enter illegally.

The question would be why jail them locally? jailing people cost Tax payer's money. Why not turn them over to INS (after arresting them) and let the Feds handle it (like they are suppose to)
AZ laws pretty much at this time, jail them for x time, and then release

 

[AshburnerX]

The problem with shipping them back to Mexico is kinda troublesome, and almost always pointless. It's usually one of a few things.

- They are criminals and we are sending them back to jail time. Mexican jails are as overcrowded as ours.
- They are enemies of Drug Cartels, meaning we are sending them back to their DEATHS.
- They aren't criminals, so Mexico doesn't want them back and they won't stop them from trying to cross the border again.

We need to make the process to get in simpler, but we also need to tell the Mexican government that we're done with this shit.

 

[drawn_inward]

I've got plenty of international friends in grad school. Some want to be citizens. I don't care that it's a long process for them to become citizens. Why should we make it easier? How easy is it to become a citizen of other countries?

I don't care if they are being sent back to a country that doesn't want them. That sounds terribly cold, but why are we responsible for taking care of every schmo that comes here? I get why they want to be here. Life is better here. There is opportunity. They can go about legally or they can find another country that's easier to get into.

I don't have much of a problem with the AZ law.

 

[Dei]

It's easy for people who don't live in high illegal traffic areas to badmouth AZ's bill. Thankfully I'm not in an area of the SW where it's really bad, but it's gets frustrating for people in states like AZ. Yes, local jailing of illegals costs taxpayer money, and it IS a job for INS or what have you, but the government agencies really aren't doing shit to enforce immigration laws. I really think AZ is attempting to draw more attention to the problem more than anything else here. Someone has to be the one to put the issue out in the open, instead of it continuosly being buried.

 

[Espy]

I will also be honest, I really don't know about the "bad" stuff that you guys in the south deal with when it comes to illegal immigrants. I've heard a little about the gangs, drugs and violence but up here all I hear from our local media is sob stories about their hard lives, even when the illegal in question drove her van into school bus and killed four school kids.

 

[crono1224]

It's only for those who are "reasonable to assume" are illegals. So an illegal immigrant wife gets beaten by her illegal immigrant husband. Should she call the cops? If she does and he's shown as being illegal, they have reasonable suspicion that she might be and they could check her out, too.

So people will be loath to report crimes against them if they are not legit or if they are worried they will be hassled.

So this guy doing cocaine in his house, suddenly has it broken into, and is assaulted, does he call the cops? I get your point but they are here illegally, they are committing a crime. (I am not saying that she shouldn't call the cops and maybe its a shit storm either way, but she is hardly 'completely' innocent.

 

[@Li3n]

The problem with the law is that they will likely not be stopping anyone that conforms to the WASP standards...

That sounds terribly cold, but why are we responsible for taking care of every schmo that comes here?

Because you celebrate the natives doing just that for you every year?!

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------

It's only for those who are "reasonable to assume" are illegals. So an illegal immigrant wife gets beaten by her illegal immigrant husband. Should she call the cops? If she does and he's shown as being illegal, they have reasonable suspicion that she might be and they could check her out, too.

So people will be loath to report crimes against them if they are not legit or if they are worried they will be hassled.

So this guy doing cocaine in his house, suddenly has it broken into, and is assaulted, does he call the cops? I get your point but they are here illegally, they are committing a crime. (I am not saying that she shouldn't call the cops and maybe its a shit storm either way, but she is hardly 'completely' innocent.[/QUOTE]

Because if she had stayed in Mexico she would have just gotten beaten there... and that makes it all right.

(reminds me of Bill O'Reilly vs Geraldo about an illegal drunken driver running over a girl, and how he shouldn't have been in the country, because obviously had he ran over a mexican girl it would have been a lesser tragedy).

 

[Dubyamn]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.

Arizona never should have made this law but I can see where they are coming from because the federal government enforcement of illegal immigration is a joke without a particularly funny punch line.

 

[Chibibar]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.

Arizona never should have made this law but I can see where they are coming from because the federal government enforcement of illegal immigration is a joke without a particularly funny punch line.[/QUOTE]

I have posted the law somewhere (too lazy to look it up again) the 2 section from the AZ bill (only AZ) that pretty much give law enforcement to "suspect an illegal" if they come across one and ask to prove their citizenship/residence/green card/work visa whatever.

Now...... if AZ didn't have THAT clause in and have the one the other states are putting in i.e. the person in question need to be involve in something else FIRST before the officer can stop them. I have no problem with it. (well little problem but not that much problem)

As for other country? China - pay 1000$ and have a citizen sponsor you and you are a citizen takes less than a year, but then again, why would you want to? cause only citizen are allow to OWN property in China all others have to rent or get special government approval (like businesses)

Now of course even with the proper clause, the illegal will less likely to report a crime cause then he/she CAN be question if they are a citizen and more than likely be jailed. So there might be a smaller chance to solve crimes cause people don't want to get caught as an illegal. Of course this is not much an issue when your ratio of citizen higher than illegals, but in some areas where it is reverse, well..... you know where I'm getting at.

 

[Dusty668]

*shrug* When I was in Germany for 3 years I was stopped by american and german security/polizei up to 5+ times a day and had my 'papers' inspected. I wasn't thrilled with it, but it became routine, and I started planning my schedules around it. Have them handy, give no crap, pay attention, and when done move out worked fine for me. Will there be issues, freakouts and events, hell yeah, we're Americans. That's what we do.

When you get down to it, it is a state placing and enforcing a law that is already a federal requirement that ICE/INS enforces and has for years. We don't want to end up like them "Injuns".

"Because if she had stayed in Mexico she would have just gotten beaten there... and that makes it all right. "

No she got beaten because you played ball in third grade. Blaming someone's consequences on a law or forced relocation makes just as much sense, or as little. This is a whole planet, we do not have just two points here and there. Even in Mexico they have luggage for people to get the hell out of Capulin if they need to. Other options besides cops for this, local parish priest, support groups, non-disclosure county agencies-even if they cannot help directly, they will likely be able to find another family where she can hide. If it all goes to hell, charge him with indecent exposure to children so even when she gets deported he gets raped in jail for being a sex criminal.

 

[@Li3n]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.[/QUOTE]

Plus, isn't someone who's suspected of another crime gonna have to produce papers anyway?!

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

*shrug* When I was in Germany for 3 years I was stopped by american and german security/polizei up to 5+ times a day and had my 'papers' inspected. I wasn't thrilled with it, but it became routine, and I started planning my schedules around it. Have them handy, give no crap, pay attention, and when done move out worked fine for me. Will there be issues, freakouts and events, hell yeah, we're Americans. That's what we do.

When you get down to it, it is a state placing and enforcing a law that is already a federal requirement that ICE/INS enforces and has for years. We don't want to end up like them "Injuns".

American security?! Where you going through some restricted areas or what?!

But the issue isn't random checks (which exist in most places, especially in the EU near former borders), but the fact that this law pretty much allows racial profiling by including the idea that some people just "look like immigrants".

No she got beaten because you played ball in third grade. Blaming someone's consequences on a law or forced relocation makes just as much sense, or as little. This is a whole planet, we do not have just two points here and there. Even in Mexico they have luggage for people to get the hell out of Capulin if they need to. Other options besides cops for this, local parish priest, support groups, non-disclosure county agencies-even if they cannot help directly, they will likely be able to find another family where she can hide. If it all goes to hell, charge him with indecent exposure to children so even when she gets deported he gets raped in jail for being a sex criminal.

Which has little to do with your declaration of her being "hardly 'completely' innocent." and more with answering Chibi's concern again.

 

[Dusty668]

"American security?! Where you going through some restricted areas or what?!"

Nope I was blond American GI with a tan in West Germany walking, biking, and riding a bus around Nuernburg, Erlangen, Herzogenaruauch and other bavarian areas. This was right after Madrid Spain bombing April 12, 1985, Rhein-Main Air Base Aug. 8, 1985 car bomb, TWA flight 847 June 13, 1985, and Frankfurt November 24, 1985 bombing of a PX. Etcetera. The american patrols were not just random, they were intense as well. They had a quota of a certain number of stops to make each hour and a range of territory to cover.

European Fun in 1985 Click for More!!!

BTW the polizei had NO fuckaround tolerance AT ALL. They got your papers with automatic weapons drawn, locked and loaded. They told you so, they wanted you to know, "You have a deadly primed weapon aimed at you, and he/she is holding a readied firearm-that is pointed at you".

"Which has little to do with your declaration of her being "hardly 'completely' innocent." and more with answering Chibi's concern again."

I did not mean to imply anyone involved was guilty or innocent, I am just saying there are more than 2 options, especially when you know the option you are about to take can have consequences. Please consider any decoration withdrawn.

 

[SpecialKO]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.

Arizona never should have made this law but I can see where they are coming from because the federal government enforcement of illegal immigration is a joke without a particularly funny punch line.[/QUOTE]

The text of the bill (now law) uses the words "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" as opposed to anything specifying the commission of a crime. Politifact consulted multiple sources, and came to the conclusion that the wording of the law is vague enough to give a police officer in AZ a wide, wide margin of error in determining what constitutes "reasonable" and that the claim by the bills' supporters that it is explicitly not allowed for this law to be applied without a crime being committed is completely untrue, being not present in the text.

 

[Chibibar]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.

Arizona never should have made this law but I can see where they are coming from because the federal government enforcement of illegal immigration is a joke without a particularly funny punch line.[/QUOTE]

The text of the bill (now law) uses the words "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" as opposed to anything specifying the commission of a crime. Politifact consulted multiple sources, and came to the conclusion that the wording of the law is vague enough to give a police officer in AZ a wide, wide margin of error in determining what constitutes "reasonable" and that the claim by the bills' supporters that it is explicitly not allowed for this law to be applied without a crime being committed is completely untrue, being not present in the text.[/QUOTE]

now other states are drafting similar law BUT they are putting in the "legalease" in the law so there isn't such a wide berth that AZ laws has or even the possible of misunderstanding. Now I don't have a problem with those new laws being draft. It is just the this particular way the law is draft.

 

[Covar]

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.

Arizona never should have made this law but I can see where they are coming from because the federal government enforcement of illegal immigration is a joke without a particularly funny punch line.[/QUOTE]

The text of the bill (now law) uses the words "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" as opposed to anything specifying the commission of a crime. Politifact consulted multiple sources, and came to the conclusion that the wording of the law is vague enough to give a police officer in AZ a wide, wide margin of error in determining what constitutes "reasonable" and that the claim by the bills' supporters that it is explicitly not allowed for this law to be applied without a crime being committed is completely untrue, being not present in the text.[/QUOTE]

It's funny how everyone seems to be skipping over the first part of that. Right on the first page (line 20) even.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)

oh here's another little part that is conveniently left out.

J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

 

[Chibibar]

right... reasonable suspicion. We are talking about the same thing here. If I was a cop and you look non white, I can reasonably suspect that you COULD be an illegal alien and as for proof of immigration/citizenship. You could be waiting for a bus, eating lunch, walking on the street, driving, anything. The thing is mainly different is that it give LOCAL enforcer to "reasonable suspicion" what is that? You look funny? unless these law enforcers can read mind, the only way to "reasonably suspect" is by look or action.

 

[@Li3n]

"American security?! Where you going through some restricted areas or what?!"

Nope I was blond American GI with a tan in West Germany walking, biking, and riding a bus around Nuernburg, Erlangen, Herzogenaruauch and other bavarian areas. This was right after Madrid Spain bombing April 12, 1985, Rhein-Main Air Base Aug. 8, 1985 car bomb, TWA flight 847 June 13, 1985, and Frankfurt November 24, 1985 bombing of a PX. Etcetera. The american patrols were not just random, they were intense as well. They had a quota of a certain number of stops to make each hour and a range of territory to cover.

European Fun in 1985 Click for More!!!

BTW the polizei had NO fuckaround tolerance AT ALL. They got your papers with automatic weapons drawn, locked and loaded. They told you so, they wanted you to know, "You have a deadly primed weapon aimed at you, and he/she is holding a readied firearm-that is pointed at you".

Oh, before the fall of the wall, i suspected that after i posted.

But this isn't about random checks after some terrorist attacks, they weren't stopping you on "reasonable suspicion", but at random.

This law basically says that anyone who makes the cop thinks is an illegal, and lets not kid ourselves about what that will be.

 

[ElJuski]

hahahaha yeah, reasonable suspicion. Prove to me that people WON'T use that as a bullshit excuse to randomly pick off Mexicans. And please, just because ITS DA LAW doesn't change jack shit that racial profiling will be a method in force.

 

[Dusty668]

Well I'm not seeing how having to have a "bullshit reason" is worse than just at random. Would changing the law to allow cops to check anyone at all at any time be ok then?

 

[Espy]

You know, I'm not sure I support this law or not, I haven't spent much time reading up on it, but I do find the "well, cops might abuse it" argument to be a less than effective method of debating against it.

 

[ElJuski]

And I'm not saying that I have an easier fix. I'm just cynically pointing out the inevitability. As far as the law goes, I hope America's collective think tank can figure something out that is based on something more substantial than random or "random" checks. The most ideal fix would be to not have illegal immigrants and not have racially biased cops. But, alas.

What's that line from Watchmen? You know, the only bit of latin geeks can remember.

 

[Officer_Charon]

@JigglyMuff: because if we start making stops that are bad, even if they turn up contraband or illegal immigrants, it gets tossed out of the court. There's a legal term called "fruit of the poisonous tree." It means that if a stop or arrest is bad, then anything that comes about as a result of that stop is null and void.

It'd be like if I stopped a car that I suspected of carrying drugs. I HAVE, repeat HAVE to have a legal reason for stopping that car. Being a beat-up Chevy Caprice with primer patches in a low-income neighborhood is NOT a legal reason to conduct a stop.

If officers make bad stops and bad arrests, it costs the municipality money in legal costs, jail costs, and other associated costs. To say nothing of the liability incurred, civilly.

The AZ law provides state support for a Federal law, and may only be applied in the event of another crime being charged. From my understanding of this law, you cannot be sent to an AZ SOLELY on the basis of being an illegal immigrant.

Also, that latin is "quis custodiat ipsos custodes." And the answer to THAT would be "Internal Affairs.

 

[Covar]

hahahaha yeah, reasonable suspicion. Prove to me that people WON'T use that as a bullshit excuse to randomly pick off Mexicans. And please, just because ITS DA LAW doesn't change jack shit that racial profiling will be a method in force.

Throw out the whole thing then. Because dispite what I posted above, you seem to assume the cops will just ignore the part about "PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS." and the whole "any lawful contact made by law enforcement official", and do what ever the hell they feel like anyway. Lets go ahead and get rid of search warrants while we're at it. Cops will just make up any excuse to search a person anyway.

 

[Chibibar]

@JigglyMuff: because if we start making stops that are bad, even if they turn up contraband or illegal immigrants, it gets tossed out of the court. There's a legal term called "fruit of the poisonous tree." It means that if a stop or arrest is bad, then anything that comes about as a result of that stop is null and void.

It'd be like if I stopped a car that I suspected of carrying drugs. I HAVE, repeat HAVE to have a legal reason for stopping that car. Being a beat-up Chevy Caprice with primer patches in a low-income neighborhood is NOT a legal reason to conduct a stop.

If officers make bad stops and bad arrests, it costs the municipality money in legal costs, jail costs, and other associated costs. To say nothing of the liability incurred, civilly.

The AZ law provides state support for a Federal law, and may only be applied in the event of another crime being charged. From my understanding of this law, you cannot be sent to an AZ SOLELY on the basis of being an illegal immigrant.

Also, that latin is "quis custodiat ipsos custodes." And the answer to THAT would be "Internal Affairs.

hmm. I am reading this law a bit differently. Note only the AZ law that people seems to have issue with. Other states area already have laws in the works but worded differently like you said, the person in question has to commit a crime or stop for other reason THEN if you think they might be illegal immigrant you can ask and tack that on without repercussion as you have said.

That is what I see the main difference in AZ law. If I am reading this wrong, then I apologize, but it seems that other lawyers who have look into this law are seeing the same thing I am seeing (I had to read the law at least 3-4 times cause it was confusion the first two times around)

 

[Officer_Charon]

A lawful contact CAN mean just coming up to someone on the street and talking to them. HOWEVER, unless you've done something wrong, or are acting in a suspicious manner (deliberately avoiding police, looking over your shoulder after police have passed, etc), an officer CANNOT hold you.

I can go up to someone on the street and say "Hey man, can I talk to you?" and if I have no articulable reasonable suspicion about the person, they can tell me "No," and walk on, and I've got nothing to hold them on.

That whole 4th Amendment thing, you know?

 

[Krisken]

And the "Reasonable Suspicion" thing is what I find troubling. Cell phones, pagers, McDonalds wrappers, and an Atlas has all been used, successfully, to support "reasonable suspicion". Saying no to the officer can be construed suspicious behavior.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about reasonable suspicion being abused.

 

[Dusty668]

And the "Reasonable Suspicion" thing is what I find troubling. Cell phones, pagers, McDonalds wrappers, and an Atlas has all been used...

Sir, I need to discuss that Atlas with you....

:laugh:

 

[Hailey Knight]

A lawful contact CAN mean just coming up to someone on the street and talking to them. HOWEVER, unless you've done something wrong, or are acting in a suspicious manner (deliberately avoiding police, looking over your shoulder after police have passed, etc), an officer CANNOT hold you.

I can go up to someone on the street and say "Hey man, can I talk to you?" and if I have no articulable reasonable suspicion about the person, they can tell me "No," and walk on, and I've got nothing to hold them on.

That whole 4th Amendment thing, you know?

Wasn't there a big deal about some sheriff in an AZ town rounding up whole Hispanic households on immigration suspicions? Can't recall his name, but the point is, this has already been abused before the law was even written--they just legalized what was already happening. Maybe AZ cares less about the cost than GA.