• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Raising Arizona ... Guns, Illegals ... what next???

m26

m26

Well-Known Member
Contributor
SkywardET said:
What, exactly, constitutes reasonable suspicion? How can anyone have any "reasonable suspicion" about a person's immigration status and not include some enormous number of citizens? The day that an American citizen with a "Hispanic complexion" and a "Latino accent" gets detained for not producing proof of citizenship will be the beginning of the end for this law, so what's the point of it anyways?
Click to expand...

First of all, even if we granted that there is NO possible fair application of 8B (reasonable suspicion) the law would still be in good shape. The example you offer might be the end of an officer's career, but since such a detention would not be in compliance with this law it obviously wouldn't spell any sort of doom for the law... at least not in the courts.

Meanwhile, the other provisions of the law still function perfectly well. Illegals will be deported if they are convicted of a crime (or, more accurately, turned over to ICE). More importantly, this gives AZ law enforcement the right to arrest, without warrant (but with probable cause), any illegals previously convicted of crimes in AZ (8E). So if a drug dealer gets convicted, deported, and then crawls back into AZ, he can be arrested immediately and sent back to ICE.

But reasonable suspicion, as has been stated, is clear and articulable facts not pertaining to race, ethnicity or language. How might this be applied? I don't know, but I bet we'll find out. It could be a van full of people without IDs near the border, someone who cannot articulate his immigration status (if it came up legally in an interview), or anyone who cannot produce a valid form of ID.
 
S

SkywardET

Contrarian
Not to wade too much into the weeds, but prior to getting my driver's license I had absolutely no form of identification. I had a SS card and a birth certificate, but those are not forms of identification. Are you suggesting it should be illegal to not possess a driver's license if you're a citizen? What if you come from a state, presuming there are any, where a driver's license does not require citizenship? Then what does a driver's license prove, other than that you indeed are Juan Perez? Should anyone driving through Arizona be required to carry their birth certificate as proof of citizenship as well as their driver's license as ID?

What if you simply do not have proof of citizenship? Is that really criminal? Better arrest those that don't have their birth certificate on them!

The other sections of the law, such as reporting to different agencies or enforcing previous convictions are acceptable, but...

You seem to think it should be a crime to simply not be able to produce identification, based on your last paragraph. That is probably the most un-American sentiment in our history. I'm sure this is exactly the reason the Patriots fought the British...

If you need me I'll be busy trying to attach electricity generators to the spinning corpses of our founders. And they said perpetual motion was impossible...
 
Spekkio

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
The example you offer might be the end of an officer's career, but since such a detention would not be in compliance with this law it obviously wouldn't spell any sort of doom for the law... at least not in the courts.
Click to expand...
If the local LE agencies decide to get rid of an officer to take the heat of bad publicity off, this law will cease to be enforced. Few officers are going to want to risk their career over something like this, particularly when they know that the organization for which they work isn't on board.

The only way this law will survive is if the LE agencies back their officers and DON'T fire them in lieu of bad publicity. But then that leaves it up to the courts, which may undo the law anyway. Time will tell, I suppose.
 
m26

m26

Well-Known Member
Contributor
SkywardET said:
You seem to think it should be a crime to simply not be able to produce identification, based on your last paragraph. That is probably the most un-American sentiment in our history. I'm sure this is exactly the reason the Patriots fought the British...
Click to expand...

I meant that that might constitute reasonable suspicion for someone already detained. In fact, if you'd been following along you might've noticed that I explicitly stated that people should not need to carry ID maybe 6 posts ago.

What I said, and what the law says, is that someone who is already detained for another crime may have his immigration status investigated if there is reasonable suspicion that he is not here legally. I phrased rather poorly, saying "valid ID" rather than "being able to identify oneself," but the principle is the same. You need specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude there is a decent chance that someone may not be here legally. Consider the following case:

Pull over a man for DUI. He has no license. [Right here you need to find out who he is anyway so that you can add him to the records database, lest he do the same again in AZ or elsewhere.] His fingerprints turn up nothing in the system. He tells you he is 42, and his name is _____, and he was born in Phoenix. Birth records turn up no results of that name born at that time at that place. He has no SS card, no birth certificate, or any other form of identification (or refuses to tell police).

Would a reasonable person believe that this person may not be here legally? If so:

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).
Click to expand...
 
wink

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Spekkio said:
If the local LE agencies decide to get rid of an officer to take the heat of bad publicity off, this law will cease to be enforced. Few officers are going to want to risk their career over something like this, particularly when they know that the organization for which they work isn't on board.

The only way this law will survive is if the LE agencies back their officers and DON'T fire them in lieu of bad publicity. But then that leaves it up to the courts, which may undo the law anyway. Time will tell, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Long before any of the very very few bigoted officers uses race
inappropriately in the enforcement of this law, it will be alleged that one has. As in every case of a charge of misconduct of a LE officer there will be an investigation. In the case of the very real and frequent false accusations leveled at LE, the officer will be cleared and the facts made public. The agenda driven "victim" will sue and it will go to court like the dozens of times it happens every year in AZ. The system will play out and, as is the case 90+% of the time, it will be found that the office acted properly and the charges are baseless. IF the cop did intentionally break with agency policy and the law he will be disciplined. The law suit will still go forward becasue there is no money to be made in agency discipline and the agency may lose. But you can be assured that other cops will do their jobs, including the enforcement of this law as they are used to the prospect of being sued or losing their jobs to Monday morning quarterbacking from people whether it be for killing someone, injuring them or God forbid, offending their race conscious sensibilities.
 
wink

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
AZ residents hit trifecta!!!

A4's started this thread with the rhetorical, "What's next" for Arizona? First improved gun legislation, then new immigration enforcement. Today, the governor refuses to renew the contract with Redflex, the photo radar provider in the state. That's right boys and girls, 78 radar cameras, stationary and in vans, statewide, gone! I have never been more proud to be a Zonie. :icon_wink

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/05/03/daily54.html
 
Pepe

Pepe

If it's stupid but works, it isn't stupid.
pilot
HackerF15E said:
It says in the first 10 seconds that it's from Robert Rodriguez.

You know...El Mariachi...Desperado....From Dusk Till Dawn....
Click to expand...

Whoops...guess I was too busy rolling my eyes and missed it.
 
P

Picaroon

Helos
pilot
wink said:
A4's started this thread with the rhetorical, "What's next" for Arizona? First improved gun legislation, then new immigration enforcement. Today, the governor refuses to renew the contract with Redflex, the photo radar provider in the state. That's right boys and girls, 78 radar cameras, stationary and in vans, statewide, gone! I have never been more proud to be a Zonie. :icon_wink

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/05/03/daily54.html
Click to expand...

Awesome! I hate the cameras and I'm glad to see this go away. The only difference this will make is that drivers will stop braking right before the cameras and then accelerating once past them. Unfortunately I doubt this applies to the Tempe city cameras.
 
rare21

rare21

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
WOW. Theres a wonderful thing called officer discretion. I can tell you that most illegals in my neck of the woods are courteous, respectful and apologetic when it comes to an infraction or class B and above misdemeanor. I'd rather arrest an illegal than a loud mouth white boy that thinks he's entitled to something special because of his race (and this happens way too much down here and I do not fall for it). The bottom line is as it was when I first posted is that the government can pass all this legislation and I could care less. We do not have the manpower to enforce it. The govt trains local officers for immigration laws if they request it. the US government pays for it. Who's gonna pay for our training if the law is passed in Texas? You, Mr Taxpayer? Yup. Good luck to Arizona, there are probably thousands of local officers waiting in line to go to training to enforce US federal laws. Then they are going to say "fuck it" they dont have time for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top