Arizona to illegals: GTFO.

[Acturus]

Oops it is lawful contact. Same implications though. Lawful contact means the person has already violated another law.

That arrest section also means they've already done something, as well as the traffic section.

Edit for Archi - lawful contact means the person has already done something.

Edit - under federal law a police officer can already question you w/o probable cause and demand you show your proof of citizenship. The Arizona law makes it harder, you must have already done something in order for the cop to demand proof of citizenship.

Lawful contact can be made based on reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken. The person does not have to have broken a law for contact to be made. The officer just needs reasonable suspicion that a law was broken.

And furthermore, if a law was not broken, but that person was illegal, the existing immimgration laws still hold. You don't get to throw out that the person is illegal just because he -wasn't- committing a particular crime.

[archibaldcrane]

Something = "broken a law."

Which is an extremely low barrier of entry, especially considering 1 mph over the speed limit is "breaking a law", and a cop can EASILY fabricate a "lawbreaking offense" (like jaywalking, weaving within your lane, loitering) out of nowhere, have it be his word against yours, and win 100% of the time.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Lawful contact can be made based on reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken. The person does not have to have broken a law for contact to be made. The officer just needs reasonable suspicion that a law was broken.

And furthermore, if a law was not broken, but that person was illegal, the existing immimgration laws still hold. You don't get to throw out that the person is illegal just because he -wasn't- committing a particular crime.

You're reading it wrong.

1) lawful contact
2) reasonable suspicion person is an alien
3) prove it

You're reading it as

1) lawful contact OR
2) reasonable suspicion person is an alien leads to
3) prove it

And you would get to throw it out if the policeman didn't have a right lawful contact in the first place or so I would think.

[Lucavi]

Through the sarcasm and hatred all I hear is jealousy. How can you denounce something and admit to doing it all in the same breath?

Maybe I am jealous. I never said I wasn't. I try not to hide things like that, so if you see some, it may possibly be there.

I do admit that I'd love to be white and not have to worry about some of the things I currently have to, but then I'd be forced to give up a few other nice things that I currently am "blessed" with.

That whole country club thing would be nice.

[Day]

Dude the country club at birth thing is fucking sweet.

[Gregorio]

Some people i know that moved to USA have been telling me that newborns of latin/hispanic inmigrants barely speak spanish, so yea i doubt spanish will be a "must" speak language in near future over there.

I routinely deal with people who barely speak english and use their 3-4 year old child to translate. Many non-English speaking parents do (and are smart to) make their children speak English only so they can assimilate easier.

Point in fact, I am white and I have never really given any thought to oppressing minorities. I dunno, I guess I just never got the memo.

Crap...I was actually supposed to forward that memo to you. My bad, I guess I misspelled your name in my outbox.

[Lucavi]

Gregorio... wasn't that a guy in the original Front Mission?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

And although the barrier of entry is small, so is the burden of proof.

[Gadritan]

You're late to the thread. This has already been discussed. There's a bit of racisim there, but since it extends to all of humanity

It extends to all of humanity, yet...

White people simply catch it because it was, and continues to be their actions that have/do affect(ed) me.... you know, on account of being the master race and all, and the most powerful and influential race in all of existence.

Perfect example of racism through ignorance. You're no different from those you condemn.

The PC term for me would be Euro-Native-African American I guess. So my ancestors clearly decided to make love, not war. But this leaves me in an awkward position...who do I get to point my finger at?

[archibaldcrane]

And although the barrier of entry is small, so is the burden of proof.

Shouldn't be burden of proof be on the prosecution?

Prove Sergio is -not- a lawful U.S. citizen.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Shouldn't be burden of proof be on the prosecution?

Prove Sergio is -not- a lawful U.S. citizen.

If it goes to trial of course.

But in front of the cop all you have to give them is your DL #.

[archibaldcrane]

If it goes to trial of course.

I'm still curious how they are going to prove that Sergio, the illegal alien with no ID and no papers, isn't a U.S. citizen. Would they start digging up Guatemalan birth certificates and shit?

But in front of the cop all you have to give them is your DL #.

And if you're jaywalking?

[Acturus]

You're reading it wrong.

1) lawful contact
2) reasonable suspicion person is an alien
3) prove it

You're reading it as

1) lawful contact OR
2) reasonable suspicion person is an alien leads to
3) prove it

And you would get to throw it out if the policeman didn't have a right lawful contact in the first place or so I would think.

No, I don't believe I am reading it wrong. Here, I'll quote it again:

[Section 2]
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).

And now I will streamline it for intent:

[Section 2]
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL [...] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS [...] UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, [...] A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE [...] TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

Lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists.

1. Step 1, Ask self, "is there reasonable suspicion that this person is unlawfully present in these United States?"
2. If there is such reasonable suspicion, then
3. Step 2, make lawful contact for the purposes of verifying the person's lawful presence in these United States.

End of story. No investigation is required to verify that any other crime has been committed, as this law is written. All it takes is reasonable suspicion that a person is here unlawfully, and lawful contact can be made for the purpose of verifying that person's eligibility to be in the US.

*edit* In fact, as written, lawful contact MUST be made if reasonable suspicion exists. The law enforcement officer is required to act on any reasonable suspicion he has. This is further exemplified by Section 2 part E, where the law enforcement officer may arrest said person following lawful contact based on reasonable suspicion without a warrent.

[Gadritan]

If it goes to trial of course.

But in front of the cop all you have to give them is your DL #.

I think everyone is overlooking a critical factor in all of this. Most cops aren't going to want to deal with the extra hassle that's going to be involved in a case that goes from traffic ticket to illegal immigration. They're not going to be "hunting for illegals."

I've worked mostly construction, so I've worked with a LOT of illegals. It's astounding how little trouble they get into when they get pulled around here. So many cases of them being given the easy way out, or just a warning because the cops didn't want to get into all the immigration shit. Yet when I get the same infractions, I get the run around and have to pay out the ass or lose my license.

Such is life.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

No, I don't believe I am reading it wrong. Here, I'll quote it again:



And now I will streamline it for intent:



Lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists.

1. Step 1, Ask self, "is there reasonable suspicion that this person is unlawfully present in these United States?"
2. If there is such reasonable suspicion, then
3. Step 2, make lawful contact for the purposes of verifying the person's lawful presence in these United States.

End of story. No investigation is required to verify that any other crime has been committed, as this law is written. All it takes is reasonable suspicion that a person is here unlawfully, and lawful contact can be made for the purpose of verifying that person's eligibility to be in the US.

You got it backwards.

Lawful contact must exist before the officer can get to reasonable suspicion.

Your second quote spells that out clearly.

[Gadritan]

You got it backwards.

Lawful contact must exist before the officer can get to reasonable suspicion.

Your second quote spells that out clearly.

Uh.

[Section 2]
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL [...] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS [...] UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, [...] A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE [...] TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

...you got it backwards. It's stating reasonable suspicion exists previous to lawful contact.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL [...] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS

How in gods name can you interpret that as R suspicion being independent of lawful contact? If lawful contact wasn't required it wouldn't even be there. Why put that in there if the cops can question any bloke off the street?

[Acturus]

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL [...] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS

How in gods name can you interpret that as R suspicion being independent of lawful contact? If lawful contact wasn't required it wouldn't even be there. Why put that in there if the cops can question any bloke off the street?

You're just being silly now. I am saying nothing to imply that "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" are independent.

On the contrary, my entire point is that the act of making "lawful contact" is dependant on first having "reasonable suspicion".

I mean, it's 6th grade language arts, man: "[Item #1] where [Item #2] exists." Item #1 is lawful contact, and Item #2 is reasonable suspicion.

Lawful contact can be made where reasonable suspicion exists.

If reasonable suspicion exists, then lawful contact can be made.

[ilduce]

<3

[Gadritan]

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL [...] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS

How in gods name can you interpret that as R suspicion being independent of lawful contact? If lawful contact wasn't required it wouldn't even be there. Why put that in there if the cops can question any bloke off the street?

I just jumped in on that one. You're correct. I misread. It's stating that during lawful contact, if there's reasonable suspicion, this is what they're supposed to do etc.

Also.

bloke

So why the fuck do you care about AZ? Stop illegally immigrating into threads about the US!