Arizona to illegals: GTFO.

[Gadritan]

Lawful contact can be made where reasonable suspicion exists.

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

Negative rampart. I jumped the gun on that one. Reread it.

"For any lawful contact made..."

It's not stating lawful contact can be made, should be made, etc based on reasonable suspicion. It's stating that lawful contact HAS ALREADY happened, and that if there is reasonable suspicion as to their citizenship, they have a right to investigate in such a manner.

[Gadritan]

Mind you, Grateful dead stickers are automatic probable cause to be searched in a few states in this country as well. If they need a way, they'll find one.

You may also find this interesting.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Except, of course, for some notable exceptions:

First class mail may be opened without a warrant on less than probable cause. ... Automotive travelers may be stopped ... near the border without individualized suspicion even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity ... and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatsoever.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19693

[Acturus]

Negative rampart. I jumped the gun on that one. Reread it.

"For any lawful contact made..."

It's not stating lawful contact can be made, should be made, etc based on reasonable suspicion. It's stating that lawful contact HAS ALREADY happened, and that if there is reasonable suspicion as to their citizenship, they have a right to investigate in such a manner.

[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.

Rephrase the sentence:

A reasonable attempt shall be made to determine the immigration status of a person for any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

All that Section 2 Part B of the changes says is that when lawful contact is made based on reasonable suspicion as to a person's immigration status, a reasonable attempt must be made to determine that status.

It says nothing about getting to the point where you have reasonable suspicion and have made lawful contact, only about what happens once you get to this point.

I find nothing in the law that defines -how- reasonable suspicion is determined, nor do I find anything that defines when lawful contact must be made based on reasonable suspicion. I imagine that these terms are defined in law enforment statutes in Arizona's State laws.

As for the crux of this particular issue, what it comes down to is that an investigation into a person's immigration status must happen once lawful contact has been made based on reasonable suspicion that the person may be in the US illegally.

Are we hung up on what lawful contact is? It's not just an arrest, or a traffic stop. It's any instance where "Hi, I'm Officer Pal, and I'd like to ask you some questions" comes into play.

If you are approached by a police officer acting in accordance with Arizona law, then lawful contact in the state of Arizona has been made.

[Gadritan]

Edit: I keep confusing myself trying to explain it, so I surrender.

You get it or you don't.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Except your rephrased sentence is not what the law says.

For any X, where there's Y, a cop must do Z.

You can't do Z without X and Y both happening.

And according to the person who wrote the law, lawful contact is not what you just said it was. It's where the person has already committed an offense.

[ringthree]

Except your rephrased sentence is not what the law says.

For any X, where there's Y, a cop must do Z.

You can't do Z without X and Y both happening.

And according to the person who wrote the law, lawful contact is not what you just said it was. It's where the person has already committed an offense.

A couple things.

1) Courts interpret the laws, not the legislators. Though there is legislative intent in some cases, courts have and can determine the legitimacy of a law and it's meaning must be clear in it's original writing. Courts work with laws as they are written for the most part.

2) The fact that both interpretations can be defended legitimately means that the court is going to have an issue with this law. Depending on the court, they can either interpret the law (most courts don't like to do that) or just overturn the bill and have the legislators do it correctly the next time.

3) There are several points in this bill that are just poorly worded, and I believe this was done with intent. The writers wanted a vindictive bill, not an intelligent bill. I would not be surprised if the intent was to make it vague enough to allow cops to stop people to determine citizenship status without any other legal pretense.

4) No cop is going to want to enforce this law at all. It is a complete waste of a cops time, it puts an undue burden on them and it only risks opening them up to a law suit. Yes, the bill says that they are immune from prosecution for enforcing the law, but they would not be sued for that, they would be sued for harassment. Also, the bill provides no direction for legal recourse for those that are harmed by the law.

In the end, this is just another anti-immigrant bandstand that was created for the publicity and nothing else. No one that had a hand in making this bill could have had any belief that it would stand up to legal challenges. It is pandering to our worst traits as humans and nothing more.

Ultimately, there is going to be no real solution to the immigration problem until people come to grips with the fact that it is absolutely impossible to stop all illegal immigration. Real solutions have to start from that point, instead of trying to deal with our immigration issues in the same way we deal with our drug issues, and we can see how well that is going.

[Gadritan]

Ultimately, there is going to be no real solution to the immigration problem until people come to grips with the fact that it is absolutely impossible to stop all illegal immigration. Real solutions have to start from that point, instead of trying to deal with our immigration issues in the same way we deal with our drug issues, and we can see how well that is going.

Pure poetry.

[Lucavi]

Quitting isn't the American way, Ring. Just look at Vietnam.

[Yugl]

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.

This is absolutely true. I'm surprised people are looking to deeply into the law itself. Police offers can bend the rules and often do get away with it. For example, in New York it's not uncommon for officers to check people they suspect of being drug dealers without any credible evidence. If they don't find drugs, they just walk away and pretend it didn't happen. If they do find drugs, they make up lies about how glass containers of cocaine dropped from the suspect's pocket. The judge knows it's a lie, the prosecutor knows it's a lie, and the public defense attorney knows it's a lie, but they allow it to stand as the truth.

[Mugekuge]

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.




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

I agree, if you live in a foreign country you should learn that language over anything else.

I wish chinese people that live in my country would try to speak spanish better than they do chinese, pisses me off going to a restaurant and seeing those 18 years old waitress barely knowing 2 words of spanish when they were borned here and those 50-60 years old workers there that can't even say hola...

[Kyreth]

And this is seen as OK by many in white society. That's what kills me to this day. This line of thinking was, and still is, okay. White honkeys can talk about the nation being one and freedom and brotherly love, so long as the brother is exactly the same, looks exactly the same, believes in exactly the same God, and affiliates with the exact same political party.

And this is seriously okay. They have no problems with this line of thinking, yet somehow they can fake "revulsion" at the prospect of Hitler's line of thinking.

I'd like to say that my grandparents/great-grandparents were immigrants. Here's the difference.

They didn't break any laws crossing the borders. They obeyed all the lawful requirements for entering the country.

Illegal immigrants? Start your life in the USA from day 1 knowing that if you're caught, you're deported. Illegals exist in the eyes of the criminal community to be used in a wide variety of illegal employments, from sweatshops to under-the-table pay jobs of all kinds, mostly unskilled or blue-collar. They come here in a criminal act and end up used to commit more.

In short, competition for the kind of person my grandma and great-grandpa were- legal, law-abiding people who became citizens by being part of the system from day 1. So yeah, I don't like illegal immigrants. I'd like to see the laws applied with great zeal to both the citizens that use illegals and the illegals themselves. It's a twisted patch of wickedness that grows Americans dirty money while they trample on the backs of their fellow criminals.

I'd love to see the cost of hiring illegals include a fine paying for their deporting, paid by their employer. I'd like it abundantly obvious to illegals that we do take the tired, the poor, and the wretched. But "trespasser" is nowhere on the list. Nor is "criminal". America has enough goddamn problems without feeding millions into it's poverty.

[Gadritan]

I still like how someone can say "white honkeys," and no one cares. Yet I could get my ass kicked for calling someone a porch monkey (it's ok, I'm bringing it back).

It's ridiculous.

Racist is racist.

I'm not sure how that got tied into this whole mess anyways considering it's nationalism that's the issue here, not racism.

[Rhinox]

You are incorrect, in Arizona, a DL is enough according to that law.

And yes I did Beckwin. The last two lines of an article Rhino posted stated that having your birth certificate as a trucker is standard operating procedure in Arizona. It's nothing new. It had nothing to do with this law.

Yet you Ignored the fact that I told you I'm currently a truck driver and that I often went through checkpoints in border towns like Calexico, CA and Loredo, TX amongst other border towns. and was never asked for a goddamn birth certificate.

[Rhinox]

Oh looky here. You can't randomly question people. You need prior "legal contact."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-92136104.html

Hey asshole "Legal Contact" can be reporting a crime or asking for directions.


Legal Contact is a very vague phrase.

Try again

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Except it's not when the guy who wrote the phrase tells you what it means.

And if you're a truck driver and that guy got busted for no reason it's not b/c of bad law, it's b/c of a state worker not knowing it or w/e.

[Rhinox]

Except it's not when the guy who wrote the phrase tells you what it means.

Holy shit where to start lol

The fucking cops are the arbiters of the law. They guy wrote the goddamn phrase isn't the one that is going to be patrolling the fucking streets.

Also

And if you're a truck driver and that guy got busted for no reason it's not b/c of bad law, it's b/c of a state worker not knowing it or w/e.

THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF WHY THIS IS A HORRIBLE LAW

jesus tapdancing christ

This is what you open up when you make Extremely vague laws

[Rhinox]

Pop quiz time.


Is being in this country illegally a crime?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The law isn't vague, it says a DL is valid proof of citizenship. Furthermore, I just looked at that article again and the bill hadn't even passed yet so the driver being asked for his birth certificate had nothing to do with it.

Edit: Also, legal terms may be vague to people unfamiliar with them, but often times the courts have clearly defined them.

[Rhinox]

The law isn't vague, it says a DL is valid proof of citizenship. Furthermore, I just looked at that article again and the bill hadn't even passed yet so the driver being asked for his birth certificate had nothing to do with it.

I never said it did.


Also can you post were it says a DL is a valid form of proof of citizenship? Just scanned the law here

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

and see no mention of it.

[Rhinox]

Day is just trolling you guys


Btw judge napolitano the guy conservatives want on the supreme court just laid the fucking hammer down on this law. I'll try and find it and post it when I get home

as promised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElcL282ehqs