Exposing the roots of the Arizona immigration law

[poncho]

The roots of this law are purely political there's no racism involved.​

Perceptions vs. reality​

Since the murder of Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected illegal immigrant in March, politicians and the national press have fanned a perception that the border is inundated with bloodshed and that it's escalating. ​

Above is the perception. Below is the reality. ​

Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff of Pima County, said there always has been crime associated with smuggling in southern Arizona, but today's rhetoric does not seem to jibe with reality. ​

"This is a media-created event," Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure." ​

azcentral.com​

Politics is the root of this law. Apparently Mr. McCain, the AZ legislature, the Obama administration and the mass dream media are being less than honest with everyone. But what's new eh?​

 

[Dragoon68]

Again Targus at this point I'm being dispassionate. Everyone keeps referring to not going againt what the Federal Law has established with regard to illegal Aliens. But they don't ever say what it is well here it is from the USC Do you see any restrictions on it? No. It authorizes states to make a law regarding identifying illegal aliens. Arizona goes ahead and does it but note it places this provision it it. The Terms that are problematic in this bill are bolded. Now, I've spoken with Law enforcement officers and a laywer as to the definition of these two statements. Neither are fully defined by law how ever Lawful contact is construed as any contact an official has in the performance of their duties with the general public. Thus If I ask an officer for directions that is Lawful contact. If I have an accent that can be construed as being enough for a "reasonable suspicion" which is also defined loosely in law. If you are driving down the road as a US citizen and driving w/out breaking the law. A police office cannot pull you over unless you either break the law speeding, irratic driving which give the Leo Legal Contact. In order to search your car the officer needs to have Probable cause. And even with probable cause a if you refuse to let a leo search your vehicle beyond arms length they must obtain a warrent based on probable cause. Arizona's wording loosens these restrictions for the purpose of identifying illegal immigrants.

There's nothing exceptional about these terms or their potential application! They are common in many aspects of law. They give law enforcement officers a degree of judgment necessary to effectively perform their duties. This provides a way to stop, detain, and question someone on "reasonable suspicion" in order to make a determination whether or not further action such as arrest is justified. It does not permit false arrest or punishment without due process. It merely allows a law enforcement officer to investigate based on "reasonable suspicion". When you see something that doesn't look right it very often is not right - not always but most times. It doesn't normally take very long to sort out a situation that isn't cause for further investigation. Usually a person who's hiding something will reveal it quickly by the responses or lack of response. Sure it can be inconvenient - even annoying - to be stopped and questioned but its rare and not a crime to have to identify yourself if you've given rise to suspicion. We have to do this every day when we travel, go to the doctor, deposit money in the bank, apply for a job, etc. even without any reason for suspicion. The principle of "reasonable suspicion" is applied throughout the land to enforce many laws and it works! Yes, it is possible that such power could be abused and it sometimes is. But, on the other hand, if we don't give our law enforcement officers so degree of judgment in this respect they cannot enforce the law. There are always checks and balances in these matters. There is civil recourse available for cases of deliberate misuse of power. This law is not out of line with what's worked just fine for a long time. Arizona is acting to project its lawful residents - something that has become very necessary because of the failure to secure the border against illegal residents. If they don't address it now and in this way it will only escalate to an even worse situation which ultimate could result in drastic breakdown of law and order and possible implementation of marital law just to restore it. We do not want a war zone in America. We'd better take care of the problem with civil law whilst we can.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Did you read post #1?

There is no doubt that MP is a liberal. There is also no doubt he plays the race card at every opportunity.

.

Is it strange that the race card gets tossed around alot by MP, but we have the Black Awards,Latino Awards.....what if there were the White/Caucasian Awards? Would MP cry foul?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Feelingstuff, you can relax a little... :smilewinkgrin:


Arizona lawmakers tweak immigration bill; ‘Lawful contact’ out, ’stop, detain or arrest’ in

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0430/ar...ation-bill-lawful-contact-stop-detain-arrest/

If the bill changes to specify detain and arrest. I won't have a problem with it because in order to do either you must have probable cause.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There's nothing exceptional about these terms or their potential application! They are common in many aspects of law. They give law enforcement officers a degree of judgment necessary to effectively perform their duties. This provides a way to stop, detain, and question someone on "reasonable suspicion" in order to make a determination whether or not further action such as arrest is justified. It does not permit false arrest or punishment without due process. It merely allows a law enforcement officer to investigate based on "reasonable suspicion". When you see something that doesn't look right it very often is not right - not always but most times. It doesn't normally take very long to sort out a situation that isn't cause for further investigation. Usually a person who's hiding something will reveal it quickly by the responses or lack of response. Sure it can be inconvenient - even annoying - to be stopped and questioned but its rare and not a crime to have to identify yourself if you've given rise to suspicion. We have to do this every day when we travel, go to the doctor, deposit money in the bank, apply for a job, etc. even without any reason for suspicion. The principle of "reasonable suspicion" is applied throughout the land to enforce many laws and it works! Yes, it is possible that such power could be abused and it sometimes is. But, on the other hand, if we don't give our law enforcement officers so degree of judgment in this respect they cannot enforce the law. There are always checks and balances in these matters. There is civil recourse available for cases of deliberate misuse of power. This law is not out of line with what's worked just fine for a long time. Arizona is acting to project its lawful residents - something that has become very necessary because of the failure to secure the border against illegal residents. If they don't address it now and in this way it will only escalate to an even worse situation which ultimate could result in drastic breakdown of law and order and possible implementation of marital law just to restore it. We do not want a war zone in America. We'd better take care of the problem with civil law whilst we can.

I find it hypocrytical of this nation to support a bill that provides a lessening of requirements for a specific access. For instance. You're a bicker wearing your leathers riding through some Arizona back town. Now lets say a LEO feels that you are a criminal element and doesn't like your look. He can walk up to you and say "hi" (lawful contact). You respond and as long as he can articulate why on a report if he "reasonably suspects" your are illegal (he actually doesn't but he just needs to articulate that he does) he can require you to give him documents proving your citizenship where he actually is digging for more information about you specifically. If at any point you have an error on any document provided he can at that point detain you. But that's ok because if you've done nothing wrong then you don't have to worry about it right? However, what has happened here is a violation of your rights. But the Leo as long as he articulates well on the report, gets away with doing it. That is the problem with this law. I believe the same consideration must be in place of having to have probable cause in order to question and detained rather than reasonable suspicion. And the Leo must be engaged in Legal contact rather than lawful contact. A law professor once told me he gets tired of hearing "they can't do that!" because the truth is people and governments can do anything to you that they want. However, the question is do you have legal recourse? Well, when the law is so loosely defined legal recourse is lessened which also reduces liberty. However, because the intent of the law is for a specified class of non-desirable people everyone is willing to let such legislation go. But now its on the books and what will that bill be expanded to allow? That is the question you must mull over with trepidation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Is it strange that the race card gets tossed around alot by MP, but we have the Black Awards,Latino Awards.....what if there were the White/Caucasian Awards? Would MP cry foul?

Its called the Miss America Pagent, etc...

 

[targus]

He can walk up to you and say "hi" (lawful contact).

Why do you persist in this fantasy?

It wasn't true two weeks ago - but even then the law has been reworded specifically to disallow such behavior to calm hysterics such as yourself.

I just posted the evidence to you two posts ago.

And you still persist...:BangHead:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why do you persist in this fantasy?

It wasn't true two weeks ago - but even then the law has been reworded specifically to disallow such behavior to calm hysterics such as yourself.

I just posted the evidence to you two posts ago.

And you still persist...:BangHead:

Which if you note in my post #124 I don't have a problem with it. Why do you pull things out of context? The law had to be reworded to provide restrictions because had it not it would be an assault on liberty. Try getting the context of what I'm saying before jumping with foot in mouth disease.

 

[targus]

Which if you note in my post #124 I don't have a problem with it. Why do you pull things out of context? The law had to be reworded to provide restrictions because had it not it would be an assault on liberty. Try getting the context of what I'm saying before jumping with foot in mouth disease.

In post 124 you say that you would have no problem with it if they changed the law.

The problem is that I already showed you that they had already changed the law before you posted that.

Having been shown before post 124 that the law had been reworded you went on in post 125 to speculate about "hi" being lawful contact.

I pulled nothing out of context.

You really need to stop working from emotion and calm down.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In post 124 you say that you would have no problem with it if they changed the law.

The problem is that I already showed you that they had already changed the law before you posted that.

Having been shown before post 124 that the law had been reworded you went on in post 125 to speculate about "hi" being lawful contact.

I pulled nothing out of context.

You really need to stop working from emotion and calm down.

Yes you did pull it out of context because post 125 was a response to dragoon and why I had a problem with the law to begin with. Post 124 said that if you were indeed right and the restrictions were placed on it I could go for it and I put the reason why. So yes you did pull my statements out of context. If the law had not been changed then "hi" would have been Lawful contact but because its further defined its closer to probable cause. However, here is the hypocracy of it all. If people like myself did not object to the law your freedoms would have come under attack. And you willingly would have let it happen to get rid of a few Mexicans. Don't forget what Patrick Henry said at St. Johns Church to the House of Burgesses. Our country needs more of that spirit.

 

[Dragoon68]

... If at any point you have an error on any document provided he can at that point detain you. But that's ok because if you've done nothing wrong then you don't have to worry about it right? However, what has happened here is a violation of your rights. ...

The law requires that a non-citizen have the identification to show that are not in the country illegally. That means a "green card" or a passport. The law also requires that citizens engaged in certain activities - like driving an automobile - have identification for those activities. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a law enforcement officer asking you to present identification in the course of numerous activities or if, in his judgment, there's reasonable suspicion you are in violation of law. There's nothing wrong with asking for identification, looking at that identification, and further questioning something that doesn't seem right. If there's an "error" - often meaning altered or forged - on what you present then there's "probably" a problem. There's no violation of an individual rights in any of these actions.

What do you think should be the case? Do you think a person should be able to just say: "Buzz off, copper, I'm Barrack Obama and I don't need to show you my ID! It's my right to be whomever I want to be right now!"

Hats off the Arizona for doing something to help enforce our immigration law and preserve the liberties we've enjoyed in this great nation. If other States would do likewise we might make a dent in a problem that's gotten way out of hand. Let's hope so because the alternatives down the road would endanger everyone's individual rights.

The negative responses from some corners of our society including government and quasi-government agencies is conclusive proof of how stupid and almost hopeless many have become in their thinking. Some of the same people that squeal so loudly about a violation of individual rights in being required to present identification squeal just as loudly about it not being a violation of individual rights to limit your ability to defend yourself with a weapon or retain your private ownership of property if some local political wants to have a shopping mall built on your farm. We're loosing our rational abilities to make good judgments!

At least it seems from some polls - for whatever they're worth - that two thirds of the people are good with what was done by Arizona. Unfortunately, much more attention will be given in the media to the opposition.

 

[targus]

If the law had not been changed then "hi" would have been Lawful contact but because its further defined its closer to probable cause.

No - that is not correct.

Changing the wording of the law did not change the meaning.

The wording of the law was changed to try to calm the hysterics.

But of course it is not possible to calm a hysteric - as your continued posts demonstrate.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No - that is not correct.

The wording of the law did not change the meaning.

The wording of the law was changed to try to calm the hysterics.

But of course it is not possible to calm a hysteric - as your continued posts demonstrate.

Then I think you have a problem with understanding the definition of the terms attributed to the law and their legal implications. I, for my part sought clarification from a laywer and law enforcement people I know.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Its called the Miss America Pagent, etc...

lol,Nice try!