Illegal immigrants living in AZ

[finknottle]

That case has nothing to do with this new law because it's not in harmony with the US Constitution. But the issue here is that the new law permits authorities to question LAWFULLY-acting people. That will run afoul of search and seizure in the Constitution.

 

No, it allows them to question people under reasonable suspicion.

 

Can police question you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime - say, shoplifting? Even if you are acting LAWFULLY when they accost you? Can they make you empty your pockets if the store manager told them he saw you put something there? I would conjecture that even you would agree that they can. Why is this different?

 

 

You also say this law is not in harmony with the US Constitution. In what way? Would you say that the law behind De Canas v Bica was?

[KD in CA]

Number 4....interest on the debt.

 

 

Damn fat cat bankers again!!! Obama should do something about them!!!

[John Adams]

No, it allows them to question people under reasonable suspicion.

 

Can police question you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime - say, shoplifting? Even if you are acting LAWFULLY when they accost you? Can they make you empty your pockets if the store manager told them he saw you put something there? I would conjecture that even you would agree that they can. Why is this different?

 

 

You also say this law is not in harmony with the US Constitution. In what way? Would you say that the law behind De Canas v Bica was?

 

Of course they can question you when they think you committed a crime like shoplifting, but only if they have the reasonable suspicion. Some witness saw you take the thing. But the police can't just question every person they see on the block who fits a certain profile of a shoplifter (I'll let WBF fill in the profile here) where there is no witness or other reason that leads them to have suspicion.

 

But here's my question. How in %$^# can a police office tell if someone is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them? Shabby clothes? Dark skin? Carrying a backpack? None of those things are crimes.

 

It's completely different if they have a picture of a guy crossing the border or a reliable informant points to a guy and says he's illegal. But just giving the police the power to question alien status based on appearance is going to run afoul of the S&S in the Constitution, or at least I hope the Court agrees it does. I have a hard time even thinking the right wing guys on the Court will go along with this law.

[VABills]

Of course they can question you when they think you committed a crime like shoplifting, but only if they have the reasonable suspicion. Some witness saw you take the thing. But the police can't just question every person they see on the block who fits a certain profile of a shoplifter (I'll let WBF fill in the profile here) where there is no witness or other reason that leads them to have suspicion.

 

But here's my question. How in %$^# can a police office tell if someone is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them? Shabby clothes? Dark skin? Carrying a backpack? None of those things are crimes.

 

It's completely different if they have a picture of a guy crossing the border or a reliable informant points to a guy and says he's illegal. But just giving the police the power to question alien status based on appearance is going to run afoul of the S&S in the Constitution, or at least I hope the Court agrees it does. I have a hard time even thinking the right wing guys on the Court will go along with this law.

They have antenna. All aliens do. Geez are you that stupid.

[finknottle]

Of course they can question you when they think you committed a crime like shoplifting, but only if they have the reasonable suspicion. Some witness saw you take the thing. But the police can't just question every person they see on the block who fits a certain profile of a shoplifter (I'll let WBF fill in the profile here) where there is no witness or other reason that leads them to have suspicion.

 

But here's my question. How in %$^# can a police office tell if someone is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them? Shabby clothes? Dark skin? Carrying a backpack? None of those things are crimes.

 

It's completely different if they have a picture of a guy crossing the border or a reliable informant points to a guy and says he's illegal. But just giving the police the power to question alien status based on appearance is going to run afoul of the S&S in the Constitution, or at least I hope the Court agrees it does. I have a hard time even thinking the right wing guys on the Court will go along with this law.

 

You say that the law permits police to question law abiding people. No - it instructs them to do it when reasonable suspicion exists. This is precisely the condition which you say makes investigating a potential shoplifter ok. Your dismissal of the constitutionality is misplaced. You are actually objecting on entirely different grounds, practical rather than legal: the question of whether the authorities will be able to fashion a workable policy on reasonable suspicion which passes the various legal challanges that are sure to arise. Maybe they will, maybe the won't. But you presume that they cannot.

 

How is it you know that, once the AZ executive branch gets through defining a policy for applying the law, what they will come up with is instructions to "question alien status based on [physical] appearance"? Is that what Jon Stewart told you? Is that what AZ came up with for investigating other crimes? Have their policies on investigating things like gangs, drugs, and ponzi schemes been open season to accost every teenager, minority, or old guy at the golf course that they see?

[whateverdude]

Consensual

At any time, a police officer may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the officer also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”[3] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify herself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[4] Police are not usually required to tell a person that she is free to decline to answer questions and go about her business;[5] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”[6][7]

 

Detained

A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[8]

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[9] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to a police officer, and in some cases, provide additional information.

Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to identify himself. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[10] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[11] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that a Nevada “stop and identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some “stop and identify” laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest.

 

As of January 2010, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name.

Granted i got this stuff off Wiki and there could be some BS in it. I would say that the supremes would see the AZ law as not un-constitutional. the sticky part is whether you would have to give the officer anything other than your name. In most states you do under their Terry stop laws.

[John Adams]

You say that the law permits police to question law abiding people. No - it instructs them to do it when reasonable suspicion exists. This is precisely the condition which you say makes investigating a potential shoplifter ok. Your dismissal of the constitutionality is misplaced. You are actually objecting on entirely different grounds, practical rather than legal: the question of whether the authorities will be able to fashion a workable policy on reasonable suspicion which passes the various legal challanges that are sure to arise. Maybe they will, maybe the won't. But you presume that they cannot.

 

How is it you know that, once the AZ executive branch gets through defining a policy for applying the law, what they will come up with is instructions to "question alien status based on [physical] appearance"? Is that what Jon Stewart told you? Is that what AZ came up with for investigating other crimes? Have their policies on investigating things like gangs, drugs, and ponzi schemes been open season to accost every teenager, minority, or old guy at the golf course that they see?

 

Cut the Jon Stewart BS. If you don't know my beliefs, don't assume them.

 

Try this another way. You're a cop. How will you develop reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien?

 

They haven't committed a crime. They are under no suspicion for another crime. Go.

[finknottle]

Cut the Jon Stewart BS. If you don't know my beliefs, don't assume them.

 

Try this another way. You're a cop. How will you develop reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien?

 

They haven't committed a crime. They are under no suspicion for another crime. Go.

 

 

I follow the department guidelines. Why is it so impossible for you to understand that - whatever they wind up being - merely looking Latino is not not going to be it? If I accuse you of watching Jon Stewart it is only because your description of what this means in practice mirrors his hyperbolic spin.

 

How is this for reasonable suspicion:

1. Neighbors repeatadly complain about a house in which 15 unrelated people are boarding, and that they are all illegal immigrants. The police investigate possible zoning violations. Once there they find a house that has indeed been subdivided, and the residents have limited English and appear to be foreign. In light of the neighbors otherwise correct information, is it not a reasonable suspicion that they might indeed be illegal immigrants?

2. A politician employs gardners whom the newspapers identify as being illegal aliens in an expose. Is this not grounds for reasonable suspicion?

3. A company which has had false social security numbers submitted for its workers on several occasions. Is it not reasonable to investigate further?

 

You claim that the unanimous Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply. Then tell me: how is it possible to have a policy for reasonable suspicion about an employer hiring illegal aliens, when you seem to feel that you can't reasonably suspect it of those very same workers?

[WisconsinBillzFan]

Cut the Jon Stewart BS. If you don't know my beliefs, don't assume them.

 

Try this another way. You're a cop. How will you develop reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien?

 

They haven't committed a crime. They are under no suspicion for another crime. Go.

 

They have received training to do so.

[Chef Jim]

Cut the Jon Stewart BS. If you don't know my beliefs, don't assume them.

 

Try this another way. You're a cop. How will you develop reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien?

 

They haven't committed a crime. They are under no suspicion for another crime. Go.

 

When you pull them over for a traffic violation and they don't have a driver license. You do understand that this is how the law is going to be used right?

[John Adams]

When you pull them over for a traffic violation and they don't have a driver license. You do understand that this is how the law is going to be used right?

 

You're wrong with fish. Under the old law, you can already detain people and question their alien status if you have reasonable suspicion of a crime (not driving with a license, violating noise ordinance, loitering, jaywalking...to address fish's last post).

 

This law makes it mandatory for a police officer to question alien status of lawfully acting people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are not aliens. MY question stands: How in the !@#$ do you reasonably suspect someone acting lawfully is an alien. The first time some cop seizes an American and asks for his papers, he's going to say that is an unreasonable S&S and I suspect the challenge will be upheld.

[keepthefaith]

Cut the Jon Stewart BS. If you don't know my beliefs, don't assume them.

 

Try this another way. You're a cop. How will you develop reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien?

 

They haven't committed a crime. They are under no suspicion for another crime. Go.

 

1. Roadside checks for Licenses, insurance and registration where every motorist is checked.

2. Police following up on a tip they got from a call from a citizen or other source.

3. Person sees a cop and runs the other way.

4. Police know a lot more about this than I do. They have other means I'm sure.

[Celtic_soulja]

First of all I think any massive amounts of money spent on deporting undocumented workers is a waste of money and manpower...undocumented workers don't put all that much of a strain on anything...it's bull...it's not like they come and apply for welfare or anything...they come and do work and spend money just like any other American does...it's a drummed up problem to whip up a frenzy for voting power...anyone who knows anything about local economics knows this is a farce and always has been...

[Chef Jim]

First of all I think any massive amounts of money spent on deporting undocumented workers is a waste of money and manpower...undocumented workers don't put all that much of a strain on anything...it's bull...it's not like they come and apply for welfare or anything...they come and do work and spend money just like any other American does...it's a drummed up problem to whip up a frenzy for voting power...anyone who knows anything about local economics knows this is a farce and always has been...

 

In what state do you live?

[Magox]

In what state do you live?

"In an urban blight community"

[VABills]

First of all I think any massive amounts of money spent on deporting undocumented workers is a waste of money and manpower...undocumented workers don't put all that much of a strain on anything...it's bull...it's not like they come and apply for welfare or anything...they come and do work and spend money just like any other American does...it's a drummed up problem to whip up a frenzy for voting power...anyone who knows anything about local economics knows this is a farce and always has been...

Really so if an extended family of illegals come here, say grandma, grandpa, 4 of their children who all work and married, and each has 4 kids. They all live in one rented house. That is 26 people in one place, all picking up labor jobs from the local 7-11. One of the adults is pregnant has to go to hospital, who cannot charge them for those services and since it is a tax exempt hospital they have to eat 25K in billing for that one birth. Then each of the 16 children go to school at the local school district. At a rate of roughly 10 thousand dollars to educate each child per year, that is 160 thousand dollars per year for that illegal family. The state and county collect little if no taxes as they don't own property, yet has a burden of at least 160K , plus the strain on local business like hospitals. over 13 years of education that is over 2 million dollars that this family has taken from the local government illegally. That is only one family, what your county is made up of even 5% of the household who do that. Say you have 10 thousand households in your county that is 500 families like that. Again add that up and you're looking at costs in excess of 1 billion dollars to that county alone.

[IDBillzFan]

...undocumented workers don't put all that much of a strain on anything...it's bull...it's not like they come and apply for welfare or anything...

I'm asking this as honestly as I know how: are you serious? Do you really believe this statement, or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?

[erynthered]

First of all I think any massive amounts of money spent on deporting undocumented workers is a waste of money and manpower...undocumented workers don't put all that much of a strain on anything...it's bull...it's not like they come and apply for welfare or anything...they come and do work and spend money just like any other American does...it's a drummed up problem to whip up a frenzy for voting power...anyone who knows anything about local economics knows this is a farce and always has been...

 

 

[erynthered]

In what state do you live?

 

 

I think I read somewhere that they cost CA tax payers over 10 Billion a year. Thats a pretty big freakin farce? No?

[finknottle]

This law makes it mandatory for a police officer to question alien status of lawfully acting people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are not aliens. MY question stands: How in the !@#$ do you reasonably suspect someone acting lawfully is an alien. The first time some cop seizes an American and asks for his papers, he's going to say that is an unreasonable S&S and I suspect the challenge will be upheld.

 

Ok, so the challenge on 'reasonable suspicion' is upheld. Guess what happens next? The administration issues new guidelines and policies. Maybe these are challenged again, and further modifications happen. Eventually you wind up with proceedures that satisfy the courts.

 

This process has happened time and time again in police proceedure, and has resulted in working proceedures for everything from knowing when you can search a suspects car to what constitutes a Miranda warning. It will be no different here.