KirStang

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.

dippin

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.

Anonymous Member

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

dippin

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.

Anonymous Member

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.

dippin

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.

Anonymous Member

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....

Jinn

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.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

dippin

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.

Mojo_PeiPei

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...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

dippin

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.

Reno

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?

__________________
Some lessons are painful to learn, but they are all worth learning!

Mojo_PeiPei

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

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Baraka_Guru

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."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Mojo_PeiPei

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

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Baraka_Guru

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

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Cimarron29414

What do you believe are human rights?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

silent_jay

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'.

dippin

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.

Cimarron29414

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

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

You must have missed Article 5.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Cimarron29414

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?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Wes Mantooth

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.

__________________

dippin

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

Wes Mantooth

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.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Wes Mantooth

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.

__________________

Push-Pull

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.....

__________________
"No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me-

"Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown-

DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer-

Cimarron29414

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...

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."