What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Cloud

some people think (not sure if I'm among them) that the "spirit" of the law is less to address immigration problems, than to address the upcoming election.

Well this is a very tenuous position to take politically. The R's sure aren't making any gains with the liberally inclined.

[glatt]

A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,

Originally Posted by jinx

Throwing people in jail is not a reasonable attempt when practical by any stretch of the imagination.

They are not going to let a "suspicious" person go while they make that reasonable attempt to determine their status. Whether you are in "jail," in "lock-up," chained to a desk in the station, or locked in a paddy wagon, it's really all the same. The cops now have the legal authority to prevent you from being free while they check on your status after pulling you over for speeding.

A regular driver's license is not proof of citizenship. You can't use it to cross the US border any more. It shouldn't be enough in Arizona, although I haven't seen a list anywhere of the documentation they accept. Maybe they will accept it.

[jinx]

I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what these scumbag cops will do.

The cops now have the legal authority to prevent you from being free while they check on your status after pulling you over for speeding.

They have the legal authority to prevent you from being free while they check your record for warrants and your vehicle reg to see if it's stolen too. What's the difference?

[glatt]

If they are just taking 5 minutes to check some database after pulling you over for speeding, I've got no problem with that. If you are sitting locked up for a day or so while they check it out, I've got a huge problem with that.

[Cloud]

Well now, this is an ironic twist, after all of the US State Department's warnings to travelers to Mexico:

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico's government is warning its citizens about travel to Arizona because of a tough new immigration law there.

The travel alert from the Foreign Relations Department urges Mexicans in Arizona to "act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws."

It says that the law's passage shows "an adverse political atmosphere for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors."

It says that once the law takes effect, foreigners can be detained if they fail to carry immigration documents. While enforcement details are not yet clear, the alert says "it should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment."

[lookout123]

I figured you all would be eating this shit up... and I was right.

The law as presented is nothing more than an enforcement law. It allows/requires the cops to enforce the standing federal immigration laws during the course of their normal activity. Some Az cities had previously stated they wouldn't permit their officers actively cooperate with ICE agents. This law now leaves allows each officer in AZ the ability to do so even if their mayor/police chief likes to pander to the illegals. (Thank you Phil Gordon)

There are no roadblocks between cities checking papers. No roving patrols grabbing brown people. No plot to turn AZ white. The Nazi analogy might have been off the mark. Just a little.

If a cop pulls over a speeding van and sees 17 people piled in (this happens pretty frequently here) he now is able to inquire as to citizenship or immigration status. Driver License or ANY OTHER FORM OF ID SUPPORTING LEGAL STATUS within the US? Accept your speeding ticket and go on your merry way. If not it is up to the officer's discretion to investigate further or let them continue on their way. Just like they can choose to issue a warning or a ticket. BTW, all non-citizen legal immigrants are required to carry their green card with them already.

This law isn't designed to get brown people, it is designed to allow enforcement of the current standing federal immigration law regardless of the politics of the local leadership.

Personally I think the law is next to useless just like any immigration policy that doesn't start with locking the damn border down tight, but the concept is some evil racist plan to make life uncomfortable for brown people is just stupid.

Originally Posted by lookout123

I figured you all would be eating this shit up... and I was right.

The law as presented is nothing more than an enforcement law. It allows/requires the cops to enforce the standing federal immigration laws during the course of their normal activity.

Not quite.

It goes beyond being an enforcement law and beyond the federal law.

Under the existing federal law, police can (and do) check for papers ONLY after stopping a person for another violation or alleged crime.

Under the new law, police can stop persons on the street and in cars SOLELY based on suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally. It is a new standard above and beyond the existing federal law.

If you dont see the difference, then feel free to call it pandering.

Added:
As an aside, and one of the concerns of the mayor of Phoenix, is the potential liability exposure to the city. If a cop stops and holds a person who may not be carrying papers and the person is a naturalized citizen...there are grounds for a civil lawsuit and substantial financial damages to the city.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Redux

Under the new law, police can stop persons on the street and in cars SOLELY based on suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally. It is a new standard above and beyond the existing federal law.

I must have missed that. where did it say that?

I thought it said during the course of LAWFUL CONTACT.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

I must have missed that. where did it say that?

I thought it said during the course of LAWFUL CONTACT.

LAWFUL CONTACT now includes the new definition of trespassing.

If you are standing on ANY public or private property and the cops think you are suspicious, they can require you to produce proof of citizenship or legal residency.

I was speaking with an attorney for the organization that represents cities in AZ on another issue today and his greatest concern is the potential liability exposure and the real possibility that cities in AZ will not be able to get liability insurance to cover the far greatest risk of civil suits/awards.

[lookout123]

That is one of the myths the opposition is promoting. The law has not been expanded to allow random sweeps. the new law only comes into effect in the course of investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop.

Originally Posted by lookout123

That is one of the myths the opposition is promoting. The law has not been expanded to allow random sweeps. the new law only comes into effect in the course of investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop.

Not according to the attorney for AZ cities.

And the text of the law which has a new definition of trespassing:

Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

This goes beyond investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop (in which cops are already authorized to check for papers).

It is creating a new crime...."trespassing by illegal aliens". Cops could approach anyone on public or private property and hold them if they cannot prove citizenship or legal residency.

[jinx]

After lawful contact is made, a cop is suspicious that a person is illegal. Person says "no, I have papers, just not on me". Person is now considered trespassing and may be held until immigration status is confirmed.

Police can not stop person on the street based solely on immigration status suspicion.

Originally Posted by jinx

After lawful contact is made, a cop is suspicious that a person is illegal. Person says "no, I have papers, just not on me". Person is now considered trespassing and may be held until immigration status is confirmed.

Police can not stop person on the street based solely on immigration status suspicion.

The interpretation I had from the city attorney was that cops can absolutely approach any person on the street under the "trespassing by illegal alien" provision of this law, assuming "reasonable cause" (undefined) and suspicion (undefined) and charge them with trespassing by an alien unless the person can show that he is a citizen or legal resident.

That is now the underlying crime and lawful contact (the cop is investigating possible "trespassing by illegal alien")...no need for a reliance on investigating a separate crime or traffic stop for a separate violation.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

This goes beyond investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop (in which cops are already authorized to check for papers).

They are? Then why aren't the CA cops allowed to check for legal residency, even when they make an arrest?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They are? Then why aren't the CA cops allowed to check for legal residency, even when they make an arrest?

The federal law allows it.

AZ currently does it. CA has chosen not to do so.....blame Arnold.