Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

My understanding is that the law requires that the suspect has already been detained for some other offense.

That's my understanding too - I was asking somewhat rhetorically, but I suppose I can be more specific.

Essentially, the law gives local police the authority to do something that would eventually happen anyway (determine citizenship of criminals) - only for non-criminals as well (since, as you noted, "probable cause" is not legally defined as "crime in progress" and for good reason). Is that really a good plan? Does this really provide adequate disincentive for immigration on the whole? Will streams suddenly be sent across the border?

Additionally, I'm basically categorically against any increase in subjective authority to determine probable cause in real time - I can't imagine why others wouldn't be as well, but I'm willing to listen I guess?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Additionally, I'm basically categorically against any increase in subjective authority to determine probable cause in real time

Agreed

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Does this really provide adequate disincentive for immigration on the whole? Will streams suddenly be sent across the border?

If you lend the news networks any credibility, illegals have been leaving Arizona in droves, fear is evident in the streets, etc. It's all a little overplayed and hysterical.

Additionally, I'm basically categorically against any increase in subjective authority to determine probable cause in real time - I can't imagine why others wouldn't be as well, but I'm willing to listen I guess?

I don't see how it does that at all. Maybe I misunderstand your point. The definition of probable cause hasn't changed. There's just now a new potential criminal activity which an officer can find probable cause to investigate without first arresting the individual.

Once the newness of this law wears off, I imagine this probable cause will be used pretty sparingly--and for what it's worth, if an officer really wanted to get someone deported, in many states, they can level an accusation such as public intoxication without having to do anything more than say that at the time of the arrest, the subject appeared intoxicated--no breathalyzers, no blood tests, go directly to jail and deportation, do not collect $200, etc.

If the police wanted to illegally discriminate, deport and harass minorities, the tools are really already there.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't see how it does that at all. Maybe I misunderstand your point. The definition of probable cause hasn't changed. There's just now a new potential criminal activity which an officer can find probable cause to investigate without first arresting the individual.



If the police wanted to illegally discriminate, deport and harass minorities, the tools are really already there.

The police need only reasonable suspicion to stop or investigate somebody for suspected "wrongdoing", you need Prob cause to make the actual arrest though. It's almost borderline offensive to read how people are assuming that cops just can't wait to run out and start racial profiling everyone in their jurisdiction. If people are worried about it I suggest they read up on their 4th amendment and sue the hell out of the cop that violates it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

The police need only reasonable suspicion to stop or investigate somebody for suspected "wrongdoing", you need Prob cause to make the actual arrest though. It's almost borderline offensive to read how people are assuming that cops just can't wait to run out and start racial profiling everyone in their jurisdiction. If people are worried about it I suggest they read up on their 4th amendment and sue the hell out of the cop that violates it.

This is pretty short-sighted, on a variety of levels - although I feel where you're coming from.

The point isn't that police everywhere are bigoted assholes - the point is that some police are likely bigoted assholes (just like some people), and providing those assholes new tools that seem only to benefit assholes and not the greater good is probably a bad idea.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

providing those assholes new tools that seem only to benefit assholes and not the greater good is probably a bad idea.

That's just YOUR opinion though.

AFAIK 70% of the population supports this bill/similar bills. I know that popular idea doesn't equal good idea, so let's not go there but we need to realize that a good portion of people out there believe this bill IS for the greater good.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

That's just YOUR opinion though.

AFAIK 70% of the population supports this bill/similar bills. I know that popular idea doesn't equal good idea, so let's not go there but we need to realize that a good portion of people out there believe this bill IS for the greater good.

So why bring it up if it doesn't mean anything?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

That's just YOUR opinion though.

AFAIK 70% of the population supports this bill/similar bills. I know that popular idea doesn't equal good idea, so let's not go there but we need to realize that a good portion of people out there believe this bill IS for the greater good.

I'm not understanding the redundant back and forth in these threads and it's really humorous that people think this all boils down to "that's just your opinion." What's the point if that's what it all boils down to?

It isn't uncommon for policies and laws to be assessed, by those who create and/or evalute them, on the basis of potential consequences that even SOME people think don't serve the greater good. That includes research and other evaluative sources. People's opinions or expertise on a matter can be the deciding factors even if it isn't the popular opinion based on however people determine what's popular.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you lend the news networks any credibility, illegals have been leaving Arizona in droves, fear is evident in the streets, etc. It's all a little overplayed and hysterical.

First, I really don't.

Second, if we assume this to be the case, illegals are not flooding back to Mexico - they're flooding to New Mexico, Texas, Pennsylvania (seriously, PA was mentioned in one of the Fox reports), etc. Yet another angle to attack the law: it's a NIMBY proposal of the highest order, and NIMBY laws are the stupidest type possible.

Sure, it shouldn't be the focus from a legal standpoint - but it adds another color to the paint-by-numbers of how insipid the law (and AZ lawmakers) really can be.