I'm not particularly sympathetic to the problems that an illegal immigrant caused themselves by coming into this country illegally. If they don't want problems they should stay home or apply for legal immigration status.

As far as 2nd worst treatment of people breaking the law, that's hardly true and doesn't cause me any heartburn either. I've recently read where some Americans crossed into N. Korea illegally and Bill Clinton had to rescue then as well as some Americans that wandered into Iran and are in trouble.

I'm not one who sees being stopped and asked to prove my citizenship as a horrible violation of my civil rights. Given the current state of affairs with illegal immigration, I think it's a reasonable request, along the lines of DWI checkpoints and such. I also have no problem with a national ID card. I carry a driver's license today as well as photo ID where I work so a national ID card is no biggie.

As to the national ID part: I have no problem with a national ID, either. In fact, if the law was everyone must have an ID and carry it at all times, I don't think I'd have a problem with the law. My issue with the current law is that there are a number of penalties, sanctions, and so on for not carrying proper ids that are all based on a "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien. But the fact that being an illegal alien is a matter of status, and so short of seeing someone crossing the border, I've yet to hear anyone describe, in non-racial terms, what a suspected illegal alien looks like. At the end of the day, it is an arbitrary law that can be followed at the discretion of the police officer, and which in all likelihood will mean that the Hispanic man born in the US with a driver's license will be held over until ICE determines his status, while the blond norwegian exchange student who overstayed her visa won't be bothered.


As for the Arizona law itself, it goes well beyond going after illegal aliens. Did you know that by that law, if someone gave a ride to an illegal alien, the car faces mandatory impound? The person doesn't even need to know that the passenger was an illegal alien, as long as he or she acted with "disregard" for the passenger's status. Of course, what disregard means in this case is not defined, so we go back to my previous point. In fact, the law has so many provisions like that, that if enforced the police would be doing nothing but that (just like violent crime surged in Maricopa county when they diverted resources to focus on illegal immigration).

..

Who are the "bleeding hearts"? Who are "their boys"? What do you mean by "reigning" them in?

Do you think the Arizona law is meant to fight drug smuggling?

Where's the connection?

Maybe they should stop everyone carrying a firearm ('cuz we know them cowboys love their guns; hell, didn't they just make it legal to carry without a permit?) on a "reasonable suspicion" that the weapon might be used in a crime?

See, you can't take one incident and use it as an excuse to REWRITE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.

GOD BLESS MOTHERFUCKING AMERICA AND SAMUEL COLT.

(And for the record, I support the right to bear arms; idiocy, not so much.)

And I'm sure THAT is the reason "bleeding hearts" oppose the Arizona law, right? Because without that law, trafficking drugs carrying an ak-47 was completely legal, so we need to have a law that gives cops license to hold anyone and ask anyone for papers and that makes the penalty for overstaying a visa worse than that for child sex abuse to stop this sort of thing. :rolleyes:

The article states that illegal immigrants were with the bundles. And, given the area, I have no reason to doubt that is exactly what it was.

And now, I'm going to correct something I keep seeing.....

The term "Reasonable suspicion" (RS) has been tossed about in the news without a proper definition, almost as if it is some sort of magic key that allows law enforcement to violate civil rights. All me to present a quick lesson in law.....

Reasonable suspicion=a series of ARTICULABLE FACTS that when taken as a whole, would give a the average person reasonable suspicion that a particular act is being or has been commited.

Articulable Fact=tangible evidence that is witnessed directly by any of the five senses.

In the case of immigration, you can have manner of dress (clothes not typical of area or dirty as if crawling through the desert), lack of english speaking skills (despite being in a predominantly english speaking location), location (eg, and area where illegal immigrants are known to be, travel through, or frequent), and attempting to avoid contact with law enforcement (many ways of doing that including in-your-face tactics).
Heck, even hygiene can play into it. But these are just examples, and there are a number of ways to build RS with articulable facts, as long as they are tangible.

The confusion arises in that, in most cases, the average person isn't trained or experienced enough to see the articulable facts that law enforcement does. That is why they have to be tangible; the law enforcement officer needs to be able to present concrete facts to build his/her particular 'reasonable suspicion' and thus make a lawful detention and/or arrest. In short, as a LEO, you'd better have some concrete stuff, hunches don't play out well.

Now, keep in mind, RS only gives the LEO the legal right to detain and investigate further. It does NOT give them the right to arrest. For that, they need Probable Cause. So, once a LEO has RS, he can keep probing until he can determine whether or not a crime has been commited. If not, the person goes on their way, usually inside a very short time frame. If more articulable facts are found that will lead an average person that a crime is probably being commited, then the LEO can legally arrest the person.

Bottom line, if the LEO approaches you and asks for immigration documents, then he has gathered sufficient tangible facts that give him the legal right to do so.

Clothes, etc. (to the extent that they could even tell people from a border state apart from people on the other side of the border) would only still apply to recent immigrants.

And a "very short time frame" is very relative, for while it is easy to check one's status with ICE if the person is an alien, it is significantly more complicated to check the status of people who are not aliens or who have never registered with ICE. Especially since the new Arizona law does not consider driver's licenses from states that don't check immigration status as valid proof of citizenship.

As for "articulable facts," those are always easy to find afterwards (though I would love to hear anyone articulate them with regards to this issue without using race or ethnic terms).

The bottom line is that "reasonable suspicion" when it comes to a issue of status will inevitably lead to racial profiling. I am willing to bet with anyone that, 5 years from now, the number of white Americans detained to further determine their citizenship will be close to zero, while the number of hispanics will be significantly larger.

The easier solution would be to require everyone to carry identification at all times, but I guess that the number of supporters of this bill would drop dramatically if they had an equal chance of being subjected to this sort of thing as the people they want to check.

Nobody's rewriting the Constitution. We just want these illegal immigrants, who are breaking the law, sent home.

..

And of course it is completely out of the question that the discretion afforded to law enforcement officers by this law would be abused. The concept of probable cause has certainly never been abused.

I'm confused about the definition of Articulable Fact. On the one hand, you seem to say that articulable facts are sufficiently obvious for the average person to pick them out. Then later you say that the average person actually can't pick them out, that we need to rely on the expert opinion of the local police, who are certainly not immune to the failings of humanity, who are frequently considered credible by default by the legal system, who are certainly not immune to political and social pressures, and who are operating in a political environment which is overtly hostile to those suspected of being illegal.

Meh. I've dealt with law enforcement enough to know that you get just as many good guys as you do thugs.

I'm quite sure that at least a couple of articles in the new law will be struck down by the court, because it goes far, far beyond sending illegal immigrants home.

---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 AM ----------

Please, again, "articulate" what exactly would make one suspicious of the legal status of someone in a way that doesn't unfairly single out Hispanics.

..

Ah, so it's not that you deny that this law will lead to racial profiling, but that you actually think racial profiling is a good thing. I am really not surprised.

A law requiring ID of everyone would be more efficient. But then some whites would find their civil rights violated. In this case, the "race card" is being used by those who will not be affected by this law because of their race.

It's not that the average person can't pick them out, it's that they simply aren't looking. It becomes pretty obvious once it's pointed out and is hard to refute.

For example, a cop notices a subtle bulge in the back of someone's shirt. It's not a predominant bulge, and the average person passes it over, usually because they aren't looking for it. But once pointed out, it's hard to say "there is no bulge." To a cop however, that could mean a weapon of some sort. Yes, it could mean a magazine as well, but that's why the cop would need other articulable facts to build up to reasonable suspicion.

Uh, wasn't that just done? Funny how you assumed hispanic based on these non-biased facts. (WAKE UP CALL, even CHINESE people can and do enter through Mexico, not to mention Iranian, Romanian, Saudi, and all others.) Not once was anything mentioned about race, color, or ethnicity. Keep in mind that these are just examples. Someone who does it for a living would probably be able to do a much more thorough list.

I don't understand how it could get any more 'fair' than that. Oh well, doesn't matter, because once someone is grabbed committing a crime, the law can and will then LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY determine whether or not other crimes, such as illegal immigration, are also applicable. But, you say, these people are "just coming here for a better life." Well, I guess they have nothing to worry about then. At least it will weed out the shitbags.

But law enforcement isn't just allowed to determine whether someone is here legally after being grabbed for a crime. The law says that law enforcement can check status during any "lawful contact." As it was outlined in Terry V Ohio, lawful contact refers to a wide range of situations, and not just ones where suspicion of a crime takes place. A LEO can ask anyone on the street anything, and while the person doesn't have to respond or acknowledge, the mere asking is in and of itself "lawful contact."


And I just "assumed" Hispanic because that is the group that is going to be singled out in this law. But please, tell me the difference between the clothes illegal immigrants wear, regardless of origin, and the clothes Americans of a similar ethnic group wear.

IIRC in a case I read, people travelling "near the border," towards a "likely smuggling route" and "afraid to look at police" constituted reasonable suspicion. The whole time I'm reading the case, I'm thinking, if it was a bunch of prototypical white guys driving near the border, would such a stop have occurred?

..

They could maybe be illegal Canadian immigrants?

Uhhh, what? You do realize you just contradicted yourself don't you?

Once a LEO has you under arrest, he can dig as deep as he wants. Regards to immigration, when you get fingerprinted, the database should be able to point you out as an illegal immigrant. No court would ever say that is an illegal move on the LEOs part.

No different than being pulled over for a broken taillight and the cop arresting you for having a dead body in the back seat.

Those silly Canadians and their severed feet. Maybe they were smuggling severed feet?

The case was a CBP stop, (and IIRC again) in Arizona for illegal aliens.

Where, exactly, is the contradiction?

More precisely, you do understand that the Arizona law talks about checking immigration status in any "lawful contact," right? And that as such, it applies to a range of issues that are far broader than being under arrest or suspected of a crime, right?

The issue with the law is precisely that LEOs can pretty much decide to check one's immigration status for almost any reason whatsoever. It goes well beyond traffic violations, too. A LEO can ask a question of anyone, at any time, and while the person doesn't have to respond, that in and by itself already constitutes lawful contact.

So sure, a police officer can dig as deep as he wants to once he has detained a person for any crime or violation. But according to the new Arizona law, they can now check the immigration status of anyone for almost any reason they can think of. There are very, very few things that constitute "unlawful contact" by the police.


And on a related note, perhaps in the least surprising news of the year, a lot of the same folks who defended the Arizona law publicly are now complaining because a democratic bill contains a provision for a national id system.

They can also do it for suspected bank robbers, suspected drug dealers, suspected rapists and other suspected criminals. What is your point?

You do understand that they can ask for proof of citizenship and detain anyone for clarifications without any indication that the person committed a crime, right?

In other words, the law allows law enforcement to ask for papers or id from anyone they have a "reasonable suspicion" of being in the US illegally. Now, being in the US illegally is a matter of status. Unless they saw someone cross the border, or immediately by the border, I've yet to understand how anyone can have a "reasonable suspicion" that another person is here illegally without unfairly burdening an ethnic group more than others.

And the support for this law comes with the tacit support of those who know it will involve racial profiling. After all, just look at the difference between the levels of support this law has and a national id law has.

Because if the matter is really to weed out illegal immigration, then a national ID is much more relevant than having a system that treats driver's licenses from some states as enough proof, while from others as insufficient, and that allows LEOs to ask for papers from one group of people, but not the other.

With REASONABLE SUSPICION they can ask for proof of citizenship. LAWFUL CONTACT allows the LEO to possibly gather ARTICULABLE FACTS on ANY person, be it a suspected shoplifter, murderer, bank robber, etc. LAWFUL CONTACT allows a LEO to potentially gather ARTICULABLE FACTS that lead to either REASONABLE SUSPICION that allows him/her to detain for further questioning or PROBABLE CAUSE that allows him/her to arrest the suspect. If not enough or no articulable facts are discovered, then everybody goes on their way. In fact, the subject would have been free to tell the cop to take a hike up until the point that the cop developed REASONABLE SUSPICION.

This isn't a new thing, it's been around for quite a while.

You do understand that a LEO can LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY make 'lawful contact' with ANYONE for ANY reason whether or not they suspect that ANY crime has been committed, and has been able to do so for as long as our country has had laws, and NOW you're claiming that illegals should be exempt from this?

What I don't think is being understood is that in Arizona border areas this will actually be a useful tool for that area's LEOs. The federal agencies are stretched out and having the local LE be able to help them out is going to result in that many more illegal immigrants being apprehended within several miles/minutes of the border than most people realize. (OPINION ALERT...) Further north, I don't think it's going to matter nearly as much; local LE are pretty much going to do what they want. Take Phoenix for example, Mayor Phil Gordon doesn't want this law anymore than you, despite Phoenix being the kidnap capitol as a direct result of illegal immigration.

Yes, I understand that LEO can make lawful contact with anyone they please. That is precisely the point. They can make lawful contact with anyone they please. They CAN'T ask for ID or proof of citizenship from anyone they please unless they have PROBABLE CAUSE.

The new Arizona law now allows LEO to ask for ID and proof of citizenship of anyone they please, as long as there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the US illegally. The problem with that, however, is that other than actually catching someone crossing the border or who looks like they just crossed the border, I've yet to see any "ARTICULABLE FACTS" that do not unfairly single out certain ethnic groups. See, the problem is not with the treatment of the illegals. The problem is with the treatment of Americans. See, if the law required everyone to carry proof of citizenship at all times, it'd be one thing (and if the checking process is so quick, why not?), but the law doesn't say that. The law is purposefully vague, and inevitably makes a group of Americans targets as well.

They can do MUCH more than ask for ID with Probable Cause. Arrest is usually what happens at PC. A LEO can ask for ID at any time, and an individual can refuse and is free to leave up until the point the LEO develops Reasonable Suspicion.

It seems that you not only don't want the new law, but you'd like to roll back the current ones to make it easier on illegal immigrants.

Because hispanics make up the largest portion of our illegal immigrant population, they will have the largest percentage of arrests for illegal immigration. That's not profiling, that's statistics.

Anyhow, I'm out. Back to your normally scheduled discussion. Throw up a flare when you've solved the problem....

This seems like a relatively inappropriate time for someone to use Anonymous Member. Posting a thread that might be seen by someone you don't want to see it, etc., makes sense.. but posting here as such seems to indicate only that you don't want your support of the Arizona law to be associated with your username.

The point is precisely that under the new Arizona law an individual can't refuse once the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. And that that "reasonable suspicion" will fall mostly on Hispanics.

As for your other claims: Bullshit, and if you've read the thread you'd know it.

My point here wasn't even about the illegal immigrants at all, but about the Americans who would be affected by it. Hispanic Americans will be significantly more likely to be stopped to check status than other Americans.

As for illegal immigrants, I support a national ID system, for example. But the problem here is an old one: people want tougher laws for others but not for themselves (just like certain groups during the healthcare debate at the same time complained about money going to illegal aliens, and then about the provision that people had to prove citizenship for certain benefits). I mean, if you want to get tough on illegal immigration, make it so everyone has to be subject to citizenship checks, not just those that the police think look like an illegal alien. Make the burden universal.

And for the record, that is only part of the reason the Arizona law is ridiculous. People say it is just a state version of the federal law, but that is not true. The Arizona law criminalizes a number of additional things. Stopping your car to hire someone (regardless of status)? It's now illegal. Transporting an illegal alien in your car, even if you don't know they are in the US illegally? Mandatory car impounding. And on and on... When Tom Tancredo thinks that the law goes too far, you know it goes toofar

Backlash already removed some of the most ridiculous parts, like the trespassing section that meant that illegal aliens could face harsher penalties than child sex abusers. Hopefully, the federal courts will do the rest.

Have you ever been stopped in a car with someone who you didn't know had drugs on them?

And I might be reaching because I'm sure you have, and I'm sure you will somehow justify that having illegal drugs is worse than having an unknown illegal. But all I can ask is, are they both not illegal?

BTW car impounding is the least of your worries...

Interestingly enough, the Arizona Penal Code does NOT mandate that a vehicle be impounded if drugs are found in it. It can, but it's not mandated. So there.

We need a clear
 

amendment to the constitution to definitely declare that an illegal entrant into the US has NO RIGHTS under our laws. There is no acceptable reason that a group of illegals should be allowed to harass our citizens with lawsuits claiming "denial of their rights" . What have we allowed ourselves to come to?

Question, how in the hell would illegals even have standing to sue?

If they were to have no rights under your laws, does that mean they wouldn't need to obey them?

I don't know. I would like to think "defenders of human rights."

Defenders of human rights? That sounds a little extreme and "epic".

How about "supporter and/or believer in human rights"?

What do you believe are human rights?

Really? Seriously? Tell that to the white guys I've bought weed off over the years, or when I sold weed as a teenager. I'll give you one thing though, 99% of your posts I've read here make me think 'what the fuck is this guy on'.

Not being kicked while you are on the ground being held at gun point I think qualifies as a basic human right.

Again, people trying to make a martyr out of the guy quoted in the OP should look up the outcome of the case: everything else but the charges related to him kicking a woman on the ground were dismissed.

I'm sorry, dippin. This specific right did not make BG's list. Perhaps you should petition. :P

You must have missed Article 5.

Actually, I am curious. Suppose he hadn't kicked the woman, he'd simply detained trespassers on his property. Would you be okay with the rest of his actions? Suppose someone broke into your house and you had the means to detain them for arrest. Should you be able to do that?

Breaking into someone's house is different from trespassing. As far as the trespassing is concerned, I don't think he should have detained them. He should have told them to leave and then called the authorities. However, the article said they broke into his home. Now if he came across them while in his home, that's a different story. In the article, it's unclear whether these were the ones who broke into his home. It doesn't sound like he came across them in his home.

What bothers me about this case isn't so much that it revolves around illegal immigrants but rather that somebody can be sued for defending their own property. Before I continue, no I don't believe that somebody should have carte blanche to do whatever they want if you are on their property, no matter the circumstances...but you do or at least should have a right to defend yourself, your family and your belongings without worrying about, lawsuits, arrests, wrongful death suits, police records, costly lawyers and everything else that might spring up as a result.

What rights should the rancher have had? Was it wrong to round people up at gunpoint and detain them for being on (and at times) vandalizing his property? Should it be? Personally I don't think so. The kicking rightly should have been addressed, but to the tune of a 32 million dollar lawsuit is overkill in my opinion.

Which is why the lawsuit was dismissed. Again, everything but the kicking of the woman was dismissed.

Oh I know dippin, I guess I'm speaking more in general terms about how the legal system seems to have mixed message about what rights the property owner really has. These quotes stand out to me:

"Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape."

"The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

Accused of holding the group captive? On his own land in which they were trespassing...the initial appeal for dismissal was rejected and as best I can tell the whole thing went to trial. I'm simply saying it shouldn't have been allowed to go that far (at least from what I've read in the articles here there could be more the story I haven't read). It sends a message that defending your property could land you in a heap of trouble (or at the very least hamper you with expensive legal bills) and in my opinion that's not the right way to handle something like this. It seems like there is a bit of a gray area when it comes to self defense in the legal system. It might be interesting to see some stats to show if any lawsuits similar to this were successfu (the old burgler injures himself breaking into your home and sues kind of case).

haha hope that made sense...very over tired tonight. :)

I think it comes down to the kicking.

And as far as the property owner's rights, I think it depends on local laws. He probably has the right to remove people. I'm not so sure about detaining them.

I agree, that probably did play a role, however shouldn't something like that be handled in the same way as any other assault charge? Such as pressing charges and having him arrested? I don't know, not having a legal mind perhaps the route they took is more common then I think but it seems like an unusual way to handle it.

You're right, the laws do vary from state to state on how property rights are handled, but as I understand it in all 50 states you do have a right to press charges for trespassing and in most cases you'd detain the person, call the police and hand them over. As a rancher I'm sure his property is extremely valuable (its probably his main source of income) and having constant stream of trespassers with a history of vandalism he needed to respond. Is it really any different then say somebody breaking into a store and being detained by the owner until police arrive?

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something glaringly obvious here but the pieces just don't fit together in my mind.

Sheriff Joe just arrested almost 70 at a cockfight west of Phoenix. 20 were 'suspected' illegal immigrants. Poor guy can't do any crime fighting without running into those pesky civil rights victims.....[/sarcastic right-winged comment]

I believe that the big problem is that unless a person is in the affected area and actually in the know, as in an officer of the law or something related, they really don't have the complete picture of how bad (or not bad) it really is. Unfortunately, the news skews everything one way or the other and endless bickering is all we get instead of focusing on the real problem. Hell, we can't even define (or at least agree on) what the 'problem' is.

No wonder I don't like politics.....

Just so you know, as a civilian in my state I have a duty to endeavor to arrest someone I witness committing a felony. I have the right to arrest someone I witness committing a misdemeanor. In my state, I would have every right to arrest these people. I'm not saying a would. But I would have the right...