Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

HB2162 covers that i believe.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

Probable cause doesn't mean you have to have to be 100% sure a crime is going on, there just has to be reasonable suspicion. If the police officer began his investigation based on that one item, the judge would likely throw out anything he found. But that item and other things? No license, can't speak English, acting nervous, won't make eye contact? Add a few together and you have probable cause.

[quote]1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.[

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

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

[DaemonSeid]

So ummm is Superman an illegal alien?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

Yes, and the creators of that law specifically listed violations to target poor Hispanics. (See above.)

Also the police have a well documented history of racial profiling anyway.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes, and the creators of that law specifically listed violations to target poor Hispanics. (See above.)

All of those things are probable cause. You can't ask that police simply ignore reasonably obvious signs that a crime is being committed. Whether the things held up by the creators of the law would hold up in a court of law to a judge is also a different matter. Really, what the creators thought is pretty irrelevant when you get right down to it.

Also the police have a well documented history of racial profiling anyway.

And if you can show that's what happen, you have a civil rights suit. The mere threat of racial profiling is not enough to overturn a law.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

All of those things are probable cause. You can't ask that police simply ignore reasonably obvious signs that a crime is being committed. Whether the things held up by the creators of the law would hold up in a court of law to a judge is also a different matter. Really, what the creators thought is pretty irrelevant when you get right down to it.



And if you can show that's what happen, you have a civil rights suit. The mere threat of racial profiling is not enough to overturn a law.

That's not what the law's being challenged on, legally, so you can stop making that point.

And when we're talking about the intent behind the law, we're not talking about what would hold up in front of a judge. We're talking about racist, asshat, lawmakers and lobbyists targeting Hispanics in campaign based on fear and prejudice to make political hay by "making a stand" on illegal immigration. All of which serve to do nothing to actually solve the problem, but it sure sounds good to all those people who are now afraid, "fed-up" and convinced that if it weren't for those immigrants they'd all have jobs and McMansions.

I don't have to drag the law in front of the Supreme Court to say it's a bad law. It's pretty obvious it's a bad law. Even if the federal government lost its case (which I sincerely doubt it will), it'd still be a bad law.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's not what the law's being challenged on, legally, so you can stop making that point.

And when we're talking about the intent behind the law, we're not talking about what would hold up in front of a judge. We're talking about racist, asshat, lawmakers and lobbyists targeting Hispanics in campaign based on fear and prejudice to make political hay by "making a stand" on illegal immigration. All of which serve to do nothing to actually solve the problem, but it sure sounds good to all those people who are now afraid, "fed-up" and convinced that if it weren't for those immigrants they'd all have jobs and McMansions.

I don't have to drag the law in front of the Supreme Court to say it's a bad law. It's pretty obvious it's a bad law. Even if the federal government lost its case (which I sincerely doubt it will), it'd still be a bad law.

This is starting to sound like a rerun from yesterday.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

This is starting to sound like a rerun from yesterday.

We derail down the same road every day. People need to keep up with the conversation

[DrPhil]

Spinning wheels.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

So ummm is Superman an illegal alien?

Well Duh! Of course he is. He's from Krypton for cryin' out loud. Unless he's been through proper immigration channels, of course.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's not what the law's being challenged on, legally, so you can stop making that point.

I know what grounds the law is being challenged on. I believe the potential for discrimination is one of those grounds, but it is not a ground upon which the TRO was issued.

It's not ripe for litigation yet at any rate.

The law will more than likely be struck down for various reasons. The argument that the preemption argument is pretty tough to overcome, but not insurmountable. The smart money is on the feds, but not too many people have called this a sure thing just yet.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well Duh! Of course he is. He's from Krypton for cryin' out loud. Unless he's been through proper immigration channels, of course.

A visa is his kryptonite.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well Duh! Of course he is. He's from Krypton for cryin' out loud. Unless he's been through proper immigration channels, of course.

So we are going to punish him for his parents sending him here?

[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