Federal law already does that in the case of foreign nationals.
This seems to be a common theme. I'm just confused as to how you know if you're detaining a foreigner legally or a US citizen illegally when he doesn't show you papers.
I'd be ok with this law if it only applied to people taken into custody (read: arrested). It's the "any lawful contact" phrase that really gives me the heeby-jeebies.
Based on reality, there are plenty of people of all ethnic and economic groups who draw attention to themselves all the time by being dumb asses. However, black and brown dumb asses tend to be arrested more frequently than white dumb asses. And that's the important factor - not whether fault can be found with any individual arrest.
There's a fairly large body of scholarly research decoupling racial and economic factors. In most places minorities are still significantly more likely to be stopped for doing something dumb than white people.
It's like discrimination in the workplace. Even if for every new hire you can give a cogent explanation as to why you hired the white guy over the black guy, if you've got an all white workforce your hiring process is discriminatory.
In Arizona the law states that you only have to give your full name.
Let's imagine someone suspicious is hanging around a vacant storefront and the LEO thinks they're casing the joint (a la Terry v. Ohio). The LEO has reasonable suspicion to detain him. The LEO asks the person to identify himself. He complies and with a heavy accent gives his name as Juan Gonzales. He declines to furnish ID. A frisk doesn't reveal any contraband.
The LEO observes that in the strip mall where the stop took place there is a Home Depot and illegal aliens regularly gather to solicit work as day laborers. In conjunction with the man's ethnicity and accent this enables (requires?) the LEO to ask the man about his citizenship status. As is his right, the man refuses to answer any further questions. Can the LEO arrest him?
I'm reading over the law again and it says, "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." We know that if you're driving you are required to present a drivers license, but in any other situation, what happens if you refuse to answer immigration status questions?
Lets say that the LEO arrests the man. Eventually it turns out that Juan is a US citizen. Were his rights violated?
EL PASO, TEXAS – The City of El Paso continues to seeing a slight decrease in overall crime through April 3, 2010. Overall crime is 1% compared to this same time last year. There has been no change in the Murder category from 2009 to 2010 with one murder occurring during this time period in 2009 and one occurring during this time period for 2010,
One murder between Jan 1 and Apr 3 in El Paso. Meanwhile, on the other side of the border there are ~5 murders a day. Like I said, this nonsense about cartel violence spilling over is fearmongering BS.
Well I (and the founding fathers) would prefer that guilty citizens get off on technicalities than the alternative, which is that the government uses technicalities to harass innocents citizens.
Thanks for the link. I had skimmed the law before, but I missed the "except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation." part.
That's important, but we already know that the police have a tendency to use strong-arm tactics to get information out of reluctant witnesses - this law gives them another tool in that regard. A tool that I'm not comfortable with.
I'll retract my statement about victims - that clause seems to somewhat ameliorate my concerns in that regard.
As far as "reasonable suspicion" and Terry stops go: Before this law the police needed a reasonable suspicion that you did something wrong besides being here illegally to ask you to identify yourself. Now immigration status by itself is sufficient to ask for papers.
True, they can't drive up to someone on the street and demand papers, but if they have any reason to talk to someone - and this doesn't require reasonable suspicion - and then they become suspicious then they are required to ask for your papers.
As far as racial profiling: Yes, technically this law and the governors executive order prohibit racial profiling. In reality it's impossible to enforce this law without relying heavily on racial considerations. We know that driving-while-black is still a real problem in this country, and you want me to believe that the police won't interpret this law to give them license (or even require them to) profile?
I'm also concerned about sections G, H, and I, which let you sue the law enforcement agency and recoup attorney fees if you don't think they're following this law. Shouldn't the AZ AG be doing that?
No, it says they have to have reasonable suspicion that they're here illegally - not reasonable suspicion that they did something else. If a cop is talking to you legally - for any reason, and he becomes suspicious of your immigration status he is required to ask for your papers. Still sounds like "at any time" to me.
Reasonable suspicion that they're illegal aliens - and race/ethnicity/language are allowed to be part of that suspicion, just not the sole reason. But they're not allowed to profile...
Ciudad Juárez is arguably the most dangerous city in the world. There were over 1500 murder there last year. Ciudad Juárez and El Paso are a single urban area with a border running through it. El Paso is the third safest city in the US.
So yes, a rancher was killed by cartel members - that's tragic, but this nonsense about violence spilling over the border is, well, nonsense.
What happens when a US citizen who the police initiate contact with while canvassing a neighborhood (i.e. not driving and not suspected of wrongdoing) refuses to show his papers?
This law doesn't just apply to people "suspected of wrongdoing." This law requires police to determine the citizenship status of anyone they have a reasonable suspicion about upon any "lawful contact." That includes witnesses, victims of crime, people they bump into on the street, etc.
Here's a suggestion, AZ's senior senator should show some political courage and act like a Maverick and support the position he took on immigration reform 5 years ago. Instead he's too busy trying to out pander the primary challenger from the right thus guaranteeing that the feds will continue to not act on this issue.
What troubles me about the law isn't that it requires people suspected of wrongdoing to prove their citizenship, it is that it requires police to determine citizenship status in "any lawful contact".
That means if you witness a crime, but you speak with an accent the cop taking your statement is required to ask you about your citizenship. If you are the victim of a crime and here illegally you cannot report it in Arizona without being deported.
Everyone should stop and think what that means. Do we really want violent crime to be not reported because it's perpetrated on people who aren't here illegally? And good luck finding a witness if you're jumped in a Home Depot parking lot when only day laborers are present.
I understand why Israel is an important issue to you, but to be honest, I'm not sure why it is so important to national politics. To extend your analogy, I have no doubt that if the N. Koreans crossed the 38th parallel we'd resume hostilities in the Korean war. However, Korean special interests are minuscule compared favor that Israeli groups curry in Washington. (even when you include the moonies.)
I agree that without US support Israel will quickly be pulled into hostilities, and I also agree that such a conflict could turn nuclear. Finally, I agree that Israel is an ally worthy of support - most of the time. What bothers me is that the Likud party seems to think that it can maintain the status quo indefinitely. That seems to me to be myopic. Israel may be the largest power in the region for the foreseeable future, but it's not out of the question that the US might be forced, in the future, to turn it's attention elsewhere, and where would Israel be then? Alternatively, it is my understanding that Israel is undergoing some fairly dramatic demographic shifts i.e. it is rapidly becoming more Arab. Without a resolution on the Palestinian question that can only end badly. There will be a crisis of democracy when Arabs become an important voting block - will there be a religious test for voting as a proxy for ethnic apartheid or will Israel cease to be a Jewish state?
Israel holds the stronger hand right now, but it's not getting any stronger. From my perspective, it should act on the two-state solution from a position of strength, rather than have less favorable terms dictated to it in the medium term future.
What republicans are you talking about? Because, as far as I can tell the GOP had been all too eager to legislate it's morality (for good and ill) since... well... Abraham Lincoln.
The only Republicans who took a stand against legislating morality Goldwater, Paul, etc. have been rebuffed in their quest for higher office.
This is an honest question, maybe you can answer it for me.
Can you explain why Israel is such a big issue for conservatives, especially non-religious conservatives? I get that they're an important ally in a volatile part of the world, and i also get that they would have been overrun a long time ago if not for our support. So I can understand why we support them, and I'm not proposing that we stop. What I don't understand is the unyielding support - if Israel does something wrong - like imperiling the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while the US VP is in town, shouldn't they be criticized for it? Is a strong Israel more important for the region and US interests than a Arab-Israeli peace deal? And if not, shouldn't we be criticizing the current government who seems to have no interest in acting in good faith?
It is my understanding, and I don't mean this to be derisive, that the evangelicals support Israel for a combination of anti-Muslim sentiment and because how it fits into their end-of-days story, so while I don't understand the logic of that, at least I recognize the narrative. What I don't understand is why it's so important for non-religious conservatives to support Israel.
The one I've seen is the same old white "moral majority" now waving libertarian slogans around. The only reason they're wealthier than average is because they're older, whiter, and predominantly male, all attributes that are positively correlated to income. What they want is lower taxes and haven't given any thought to what that means to the services they depend on, which is unfortunate, because a significant number of them rely on medicare. In theory the tea baggers should support a woman's right to choose, in practice the Glenn Becks and Dick Armey's of the world can't allow that.
eh, strobe lights are positively dangerous to some people, but I don't think we should ban them.
I'm not opposed to the ban because it's ineffectual, in the same way that I'm not opposed to speed limits. I just don't think that the act rises to the level that governments need to ban it.
Federal law in the U.S. makes no restrictions on gambling
With the exception of sports betting, which for some reason (*cough*NFL/NCAA lobbyists) is only permitted in Nevada, Oregon, Delaware, and Montana. In DE and OR there are further restriction, for example the only legal sports betting in DE is a weird parlay on NFL games.
My understanding of this weapon is that while it is not exactly a ballistic missile, it could be confused for one - which is why it was scrubbed under Bush.
And our missile defense shield doesn't have a stellar track record.
If Iran wants to nuke someone we're not going to know 60 minutes in advance. And if we did somehow find out 60 minutes in advance we're not going to launch one of these - most likely Isreal will strike first, and if not we'd probably either fly a sortie from a carriers in the area or launch a cruise missile from the fleet. If, on the other hand, we launched something that looked sorta like an ICBM at them - even if it was conventional, and even if it were targeted at a legitimate military target - we'd learn what their reaction plan to a US nuclear strike would be pretty quickly. And I'd hate to be in Tel Aviv if that happened.
I find that hard to believe, unless we're talking about targeting South Africa or some research station in Antarctica.
We've got cruisers in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea and an active airforce base in Kazakhstan. I've got to believe we can hit anywhere in the middle east or central Asia, if not in an hour, within 10.
The only reason you'd need to hit a target that fast is if it's a person on the move - anything else is still going to be there in 96 hours. And how many people are worth the cost of this weapon?
Imagine the panic in Washington if Russia or China launched something that sorta looked like an ICBM in our direction. Even if there was only one of them.
Now imagine you're Iran. Something is coming in your direction from the US that *might* be a nuke (though it might just be going to Afghanistan.) What are the chances that you unload on Israel - your only real target in range. I can think of lots of reasons we might want to drop a single nuke on Iran - and so can Ahmedinijad. Do you think we're likely to let Iran inspect our weapons bases at Vandenburg?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, even with the passage of this law we're still not as bad as a third world country. Therefore the law must be ok.
This seems to be a common theme. I'm just confused as to how you know if you're detaining a foreigner legally or a US citizen illegally when he doesn't show you papers.
I'd be ok with this law if it only applied to people taken into custody (read: arrested). It's the "any lawful contact" phrase that really gives me the heeby-jeebies.
Based on reality, there are plenty of people of all ethnic and economic groups who draw attention to themselves all the time by being dumb asses. However, black and brown dumb asses tend to be arrested more frequently than white dumb asses. And that's the important factor - not whether fault can be found with any individual arrest.
There's a fairly large body of scholarly research decoupling racial and economic factors. In most places minorities are still significantly more likely to be stopped for doing something dumb than white people.
It's like discrimination in the workplace. Even if for every new hire you can give a cogent explanation as to why you hired the white guy over the black guy, if you've got an all white workforce your hiring process is discriminatory.
In Arizona the law states that you only have to give your full name.
Let's imagine someone suspicious is hanging around a vacant storefront and the LEO thinks they're casing the joint (a la Terry v. Ohio). The LEO has reasonable suspicion to detain him. The LEO asks the person to identify himself. He complies and with a heavy accent gives his name as Juan Gonzales. He declines to furnish ID. A frisk doesn't reveal any contraband.
The LEO observes that in the strip mall where the stop took place there is a Home Depot and illegal aliens regularly gather to solicit work as day laborers. In conjunction with the man's ethnicity and accent this enables (requires?) the LEO to ask the man about his citizenship status. As is his right, the man refuses to answer any further questions. Can the LEO arrest him?
I'm reading over the law again and it says, "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." We know that if you're driving you are required to present a drivers license, but in any other situation, what happens if you refuse to answer immigration status questions?
Lets say that the LEO arrests the man. Eventually it turns out that Juan is a US citizen. Were his rights violated?
Really?
Have you been to any city in the last 10 years? There are places the police won't hang out en masse.
It's still an extremely safe city.
http://www.ci.el-paso.tx.us/news/_documents/2010_04_09_Crime%20Rate%2004-03-2010.pdf
One murder between Jan 1 and Apr 3 in El Paso. Meanwhile, on the other side of the border there are ~5 murders a day. Like I said, this nonsense about cartel violence spilling over is fearmongering BS.
Well I (and the founding fathers) would prefer that guilty citizens get off on technicalities than the alternative, which is that the government uses technicalities to harass innocents citizens.
Yes, racial profiling is technically prohibited. Which is why black guys never get pulled over while driving the speed limit in white neighborhoods.
And you'll notice the use of the word "sole" in both my post and the laws text.
Thanks for the link. I had skimmed the law before, but I missed the "except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation." part.
That's important, but we already know that the police have a tendency to use strong-arm tactics to get information out of reluctant witnesses - this law gives them another tool in that regard. A tool that I'm not comfortable with.
I'll retract my statement about victims - that clause seems to somewhat ameliorate my concerns in that regard.
As far as "reasonable suspicion" and Terry stops go: Before this law the police needed a reasonable suspicion that you did something wrong besides being here illegally to ask you to identify yourself. Now immigration status by itself is sufficient to ask for papers.
True, they can't drive up to someone on the street and demand papers, but if they have any reason to talk to someone - and this doesn't require reasonable suspicion - and then they become suspicious then they are required to ask for your papers.
As far as racial profiling: Yes, technically this law and the governors executive order prohibit racial profiling. In reality it's impossible to enforce this law without relying heavily on racial considerations. We know that driving-while-black is still a real problem in this country, and you want me to believe that the police won't interpret this law to give them license (or even require them to) profile?
I'm also concerned about sections G, H, and I, which let you sue the law enforcement agency and recoup attorney fees if you don't think they're following this law. Shouldn't the AZ AG be doing that?
No, it says they have to have reasonable suspicion that they're here illegally - not reasonable suspicion that they did something else. If a cop is talking to you legally - for any reason, and he becomes suspicious of your immigration status he is required to ask for your papers. Still sounds like "at any time" to me.
Reasonable suspicion that they're illegal aliens - and race/ethnicity/language are allowed to be part of that suspicion, just not the sole reason. But they're not allowed to profile...
Ciudad Juárez is arguably the most dangerous city in the world. There were over 1500 murder there last year. Ciudad Juárez and El Paso are a single urban area with a border running through it. El Paso is the third safest city in the US.
So yes, a rancher was killed by cartel members - that's tragic, but this nonsense about violence spilling over the border is, well, nonsense.
regarding the fourteenth amendment:
What happens when a US citizen who the police initiate contact with while canvassing a neighborhood (i.e. not driving and not suspected of wrongdoing) refuses to show his papers?
This law doesn't just apply to people "suspected of wrongdoing." This law requires police to determine the citizenship status of anyone they have a reasonable suspicion about upon any "lawful contact." That includes witnesses, victims of crime, people they bump into on the street, etc.
Do you find it acceptable that the police can ask any one to show their drivers license at any time? Even if they're not driving?
Here's a suggestion, AZ's senior senator should show some political courage and act like a Maverick and support the position he took on immigration reform 5 years ago. Instead he's too busy trying to out pander the primary challenger from the right thus guaranteeing that the feds will continue to not act on this issue.
What troubles me about the law isn't that it requires people suspected of wrongdoing to prove their citizenship, it is that it requires police to determine citizenship status in "any lawful contact".
That means if you witness a crime, but you speak with an accent the cop taking your statement is required to ask you about your citizenship. If you are the victim of a crime and here illegally you cannot report it in Arizona without being deported.
Everyone should stop and think what that means. Do we really want violent crime to be not reported because it's perpetrated on people who aren't here illegally? And good luck finding a witness if you're jumped in a Home Depot parking lot when only day laborers are present.
Well thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I understand why Israel is an important issue to you, but to be honest, I'm not sure why it is so important to national politics. To extend your analogy, I have no doubt that if the N. Koreans crossed the 38th parallel we'd resume hostilities in the Korean war. However, Korean special interests are minuscule compared favor that Israeli groups curry in Washington. (even when you include the moonies.)
I agree that without US support Israel will quickly be pulled into hostilities, and I also agree that such a conflict could turn nuclear. Finally, I agree that Israel is an ally worthy of support - most of the time. What bothers me is that the Likud party seems to think that it can maintain the status quo indefinitely. That seems to me to be myopic. Israel may be the largest power in the region for the foreseeable future, but it's not out of the question that the US might be forced, in the future, to turn it's attention elsewhere, and where would Israel be then? Alternatively, it is my understanding that Israel is undergoing some fairly dramatic demographic shifts i.e. it is rapidly becoming more Arab. Without a resolution on the Palestinian question that can only end badly. There will be a crisis of democracy when Arabs become an important voting block - will there be a religious test for voting as a proxy for ethnic apartheid or will Israel cease to be a Jewish state?
Israel holds the stronger hand right now, but it's not getting any stronger. From my perspective, it should act on the two-state solution from a position of strength, rather than have less favorable terms dictated to it in the medium term future.
What republicans are you talking about? Because, as far as I can tell the GOP had been all too eager to legislate it's morality (for good and ill) since ... well ... Abraham Lincoln.
The only Republicans who took a stand against legislating morality Goldwater, Paul, etc. have been rebuffed in their quest for higher office.
This is an honest question, maybe you can answer it for me.
Can you explain why Israel is such a big issue for conservatives, especially non-religious conservatives? I get that they're an important ally in a volatile part of the world, and i also get that they would have been overrun a long time ago if not for our support. So I can understand why we support them, and I'm not proposing that we stop. What I don't understand is the unyielding support - if Israel does something wrong - like imperiling the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while the US VP is in town, shouldn't they be criticized for it? Is a strong Israel more important for the region and US interests than a Arab-Israeli peace deal? And if not, shouldn't we be criticizing the current government who seems to have no interest in acting in good faith?
It is my understanding, and I don't mean this to be derisive, that the evangelicals support Israel for a combination of anti-Muslim sentiment and because how it fits into their end-of-days story, so while I don't understand the logic of that, at least I recognize the narrative. What I don't understand is why it's so important for non-religious conservatives to support Israel.
What tea party are you talking about?
The one I've seen is the same old white "moral majority" now waving libertarian slogans around. The only reason they're wealthier than average is because they're older, whiter, and predominantly male, all attributes that are positively correlated to income. What they want is lower taxes and haven't given any thought to what that means to the services they depend on, which is unfortunate, because a significant number of them rely on medicare. In theory the tea baggers should support a woman's right to choose, in practice the Glenn Becks and Dick Armey's of the world can't allow that.
eh, strobe lights are positively dangerous to some people, but I don't think we should ban them.
I'm not opposed to the ban because it's ineffectual, in the same way that I'm not opposed to speed limits. I just don't think that the act rises to the level that governments need to ban it.
With the exception of sports betting, which for some reason (*cough*NFL/NCAA lobbyists) is only permitted in Nevada, Oregon, Delaware, and Montana. In DE and OR there are further restriction, for example the only legal sports betting in DE is a weird parlay on NFL games.
My understanding of this weapon is that while it is not exactly a ballistic missile, it could be confused for one - which is why it was scrubbed under Bush.
And our missile defense shield doesn't have a stellar track record.
If Iran wants to nuke someone we're not going to know 60 minutes in advance. And if we did somehow find out 60 minutes in advance we're not going to launch one of these - most likely Isreal will strike first, and if not we'd probably either fly a sortie from a carriers in the area or launch a cruise missile from the fleet. If, on the other hand, we launched something that looked sorta like an ICBM at them - even if it was conventional, and even if it were targeted at a legitimate military target - we'd learn what their reaction plan to a US nuclear strike would be pretty quickly. And I'd hate to be in Tel Aviv if that happened.
I find that hard to believe, unless we're talking about targeting South Africa or some research station in Antarctica.
We've got cruisers in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea and an active airforce base in Kazakhstan. I've got to believe we can hit anywhere in the middle east or central Asia, if not in an hour, within 10.
The only reason you'd need to hit a target that fast is if it's a person on the move - anything else is still going to be there in 96 hours. And how many people are worth the cost of this weapon?
Imagine the panic in Washington if Russia or China launched something that sorta looked like an ICBM in our direction. Even if there was only one of them.
Now imagine you're Iran. Something is coming in your direction from the US that *might* be a nuke (though it might just be going to Afghanistan.) What are the chances that you unload on Israel - your only real target in range. I can think of lots of reasons we might want to drop a single nuke on Iran - and so can Ahmedinijad. Do you think we're likely to let Iran inspect our weapons bases at Vandenburg?
Eastward. Kamchatka and the US are East of the caucuses.