Apartheid in Arizona

[DJ Dawn]

On the face of it, it certainly seems unconstitutional on two levels.

1) Immigration is the jurisdiction of the federal government and cannot be legislated by the state and 2) it seems to violate the 4th amendment with the whole probably cause and search/seizure stuff.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems legally incorrect to my laypersons view.

Aside from that, it's simply morally repugnant.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And what about U.S. citizens being asked to prove where there were born? Do you have a problem with cops harassing America's about their country of origin?

Maybe you should read a bit more closely, because I said that's exactly what I was concerned about:

"To me, the concern is that citizens of hispanic origin may be unfairly questioned. I really don't have a problem with aliens, illegal or not, having the mild inconvenience of being asked to show documentation that they are here legally."

Quick - do you know where your birth certificate is? If it's not in arms reach you are going to jail. Guess what? You're going to jail next week too, because you mouthed off to the cop, and he can have another one of his buddies "suspect" you of being and illegal immigrant.

The law requires only aliens to carry documents showing they are here legally, not citizens. Citizens are not required to carry anything. If the cops end up dragging actual citizens in, who then have to dredge up birth certificates, they are going too far and likely will get sued for not having a constitutionally valid reasonable suspicion. State laws like this still must comply with federal constitutional requirements, and you assume that the law therefore incorporates that federal standard even if it is not expressly stated. Grabbing anyone who looks brown or has an accent will be unconstitutional, and police departments with such a policy will get sued and have to pay the other sides attorneys fees. They know that.

Well, but then, what would be a reasonable basis for this suspicion? Malicious lingering? Wearing the wrong clothes? The wrong hairdo? Conspicuously unconspicuous looks and behaviour?

The inability to speak English would be a good start.

[tzanth]

The law requires only aliens to carry documents showing they are here legally, not citizens.

This is ridiculous. Anyone who looks hispanic is implicitly required to carry documents on them at all times in order to present them to the cops when asked. Hell, we already have situations like the one posted earlier with the U.S. trucker.

The inability to speak English would be a good start.

This is a horrible place to start. Since when was it a requirement for natural born US citizens to speak english? I know some citizens whose english is pretty damn shitty. I also know that plenty of illegals speak english quite well.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is ridiculous. Anyone who looks hispanic is implicitly required to carry documents on them at all times in order to present them to the cops when asked. Hell, we already have situations like the one posted earlier with the U.S. trucker.

If a significant number of hispanic citizens get dragged in because of this, they'll file a Section 1983 action. And very likely win.

This is a horrible place to start. Since when was it a requirement for natural born US citizens to speak english? I know some citizens whose english is pretty damn shitty.

Maybe so, but I believe the number of adult citizens under the age of 50 who can't speak or understand English, even using poor grammar, is very small. You don't believe that, so we disagree.

[Trebla]

*peeks in* Makes note not to go to Arizona.

-Brown skinned man of Mexican heritage

[Mad Monkey]

If a significant number of hispanic citizens get dragged in because of this, they'll file a Section 1983 action. And very likely win.

Wouldn't it be smarter to instead write a better law (define what "reasonable suspicion" is) and give the police guidelines that they can use in order to enforce it? It seems kind of weird that the main justification for this law is that if it goes wrong we can just file a multimillion dollar lawsuit and force the government to fix it. Shouldn't legislators take the time to make sure that most of the flaws are smoothed over before presenting it to the Governor for her signature? I don't expect it to be perfect before it's signed, but you'd think they could at least define one of the key terms of contention so that the police departments of Arizona have something to work with.

Maybe so, but I believe the number of adult citizens under the age of 50 who can't speak or understand English, even using poor grammar, is very small. You don't believe that, so we disagree.

Okay, so we've got inability to use English, and we can believe that this covers most illegal immigrants.

My concern is that police officers will be expected to determine which persons to ask for documentation based primarily on visual indicators. I mean, apart from traffic-related incidents, I can't think of many cases where a police officer even has an opportunity to speak with a citizen on an official capacity. I think that's the source of my concern about racial profiling; that police officers will be asked to determine who they will scrutinize based on ethnicity. While this makes sense for Arizona since the vast majority of their illegal immigrants are from Mexico, fully 30% of their population is resident Latino and I don't see how police officers are supposed to be able to differentiate between the two on sight without engaging in behavior that might be seen as harassment.

-Brown skinned man of Mexican heritage

Honestly, I don't think that a law that required police officers to treat white Americans this way would stand up for so long. I don't think that a law that required police officers to treat black Americans this way would stand up for a while either. It seems as if there is a different, lesser standard for other ethnicities, where laws can be written with the careless justification that a lawsuit will fix it eventually if necessary.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If the cops end up dragging actual citizens in, who then have to dredge up birth certificates, they are going too far and likely will get sued for not having a constitutionally valid reasonable suspicion.

It's already happened. The fact that you say people should sue because you know that this will be abused shows that it's a horrible piece of legislation.

And of course, the State of AZ is just rolling in cash, so housing all the new inmates this will generate is no problem. And we have no pressing issues for the police to worry about, so having them devote time to this will in no way lead to more unsolved crime. (I think the MCSO has something like 50000 unserved felony warrants).

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wouldn't it be smarter to instead write a better law (define what "reasonable suspicion" is) and give the police guidelines that they can use in order to enforce it?

I'm not sure that's possible. The best thing I can suggest is googling the case of Terry v. Ohio, and reading about what cops are required to show for "stop and frisk" questioning. The bottom line is that it is very fact and circumstance specific, and I'm not sure it's possible to give a checklist.

My concern is that police officers will be expected to determine which persons to ask for documentation based primarily on visual indicators. I mean, apart from traffic-related incidents, I can't think of many cases where a police officer even has an opportunity to speak with a citizen on an official capacity. I think that's the source of my concern about racial profiling; that police officers will be asked to determine who they will scrutinize based on ethnicity. While this makes sense for Arizona since the vast majority of their illegal immigrants are from Mexico, fully 30% of their population is resident Latino and I don't see how police officers are supposed to be able to differentiate between the two on sight without engaging in behavior that might be seen as harassment.

I'm not sure either. But I have a suspicion that people who are in that environment constantly may have a better idea than people who aren't there, sort of how cops can articulate things to justify a Terry stop.

I suppose it should be pointed out that ICE (formerly INS) agents do find illegals and deport them under the laws as they exist now. Somehow, they manage to ferret it out. So I'm not quite sure why it would be impossible for the local police to do the same.

[Watcher]

Maybe you should read a bit more closely, because I said that's exactly what I was concerned about:

"To me, the concern is that citizens of hispanic origin may be unfairly questioned. I really don't have a problem with aliens, illegal or not, having the mild inconvenience of being asked to show documentation that they are here legally."

Maybe you should think this through a bit more. How is the officer going to know who is a citizen and who is an alien without additional proof? Since legal aliens can get drivers licenses just like America's do I know have to carry around my passport to prove I'm a citizen? Because without it out how is the cop going to know if I'm telling the truth or not? There is no way this law can be enforced without "mildly inconveniencing" Americas.

If a significant number of hispanic citizens get dragged in because of this, they'll file a Section 1983 action. And very likely win.

That's a great belief in how government should work. It's legal until someone sues.

[Old Nan]

It is different from the Federal statutes and, more importantly, it's the FEDERAL governments responsibility to handle immigration, not the states.

When the federal government is made of people who have abjectly and deliberately ignored that responsibility, I would say power devolves upon whomever's willing to take it up, down to states, down to cities, down to militia, down to individual vigilantes if necessary.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Maybe you should think this through a bit more. How is the officer going to know who is a citizen and who is an alien without additional proof? Since legal aliens can get drivers licenses just like America's do I know have to carry around my passport to prove I'm a citizen? Because without it out how is the cop going to know if I'm telling the truth or not? There is no way this law can be enforced without "mildly inconveniencing" Americas.

That's a great belief in how government should work. It's legal until someone sues.

No. It's the threat of being sued that encourages cops not to cross the line.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

No. It's the threat of being sued that encourages cops not to cross the line.

That argument does not work, because this bill contains a provision that allows a community to sue the police for not enforcing this policy aggresively enough.

[Watcher]

That argument does not work, because this bill contains a provision that allows a community to sue the police for not enforcing this policy aggresively enough.

Which is one of the many problems with this bill. The way it's written it could force the police to ignore serious crime for fear of being sued because they weren't chasing illegals instead.

[BloodRider]

No. It's the threat of being sued that encourages cops not to cross the line.

Small comfort for the poor sap who now has an arrest on thier permanent record and had to spend the night (hopefully not more) in lockup. Then has to front for a lawyer to get redress, which given AZs courts is likely gonna take several appeals to win.

[Tempra]

Which is one of the many problems with this bill. The way it's written it could force the police to ignore serious crime for fear of being sued because they weren't chasing illegals instead.

I don't buy this argument. Assuming this bill passes constitutional muster, it will take exactly one law suit against the state/local government before a court sets a highly deferential standard in favor of the state.

Every tom, dick, and harry is not going to be suing the government on a daily basis to enforce the law. It's for show, nothing more.

[Emo Targaryen]

I would still be against it in this case, but it has already been proven that this is not the case. The truck driver (I think he was mentioned up thread) was arrested and taken to jail. His wife had to bring his birth certificate and social security card to get him out.

Quick - do you know where your birth certificate is? If it's not in arms reach you are going to jail. Guess what? You're going to jail next week too, because you mouthed off to the cop, and he can have another one of his buddies "suspect" you of being and illegal immigrant.

Beyond that, a huge part of the American "thing" is not having a government that can demand your papers.

Yes, I think this is also a problem with this bill: America has no tradition of having a means to quickly identify their citizens, so they have to resort to makeshift IDs like birth certificates, social security cards and driver's licenses. (just a question by the way: What sort of ID do you have to show in America to prove your age, e.g. if you want to buy alcohol or see a rated movie?) So to reasonably enforce this law, the US (and not just Arizona) would have to issue some sort of ID card which every citizen and legal alien could be reasonably expected to have with them (for no one carries his birth certificate around and not everyone has got a driver's license at all). So, concerning this point, I have to agree with those of the above posters who said this would be a matter of federal law.

Hell, that's what the fourth amendment is all about. There is no law requiring you to have identification on you, or obligating you to provide it on request.

Of course I'm no legal expert, but in my eyes this doesn't follow from the wording of the Fourth Amendment (requiring someone to show some single, specific item - as opposed to a full search of one's pockets - doesn't constitute a "search" in my eyes). Considering Martinez-Fuerte, it also doesn't follow from previous rulings.

Who gives a flying fuck if it's a crime? Smoking weed is a crime. Driving too fast is a crime. Incorrectly filling out your tax return is a crime. "Getting some criminals caught" is very low on my priorities for what the government should be doing. (priority #1: going and fucking itself)

In a democracy, laws represent the will of the people. A governement which is unwilling to enforce these laws is disregarding the will of that one supreme authority, on whose vote all its power is based. I'm all for legalizing marihuana and abandoning or relaxing of some speed limits - but it should be done by changing the law, not by tolerating lawbreaking.

[King Nobody]

"Show me your papers, comrade."

Enjoy your totalitarianism.

[Shryke]

When the federal government is made of people who have abjectly and deliberately ignored that responsibility, I would say power devolves upon whomever's willing to take it up, down to states, down to cities, down to militia, down to individual vigilantes if necessary.

Good thing that's not the way it works.

And again, this only encourages crime to flourish in minority communities as they become more and more afraid to interact with the police.

Your husband beating you up? Too bad, you can't go to the police or they'll deport your ass.

[benderschweiz]

Good thing that's not the way it works.

And again, this only encourages crime to flourish in minority communities as they become more and more afraid to interact with the police.

Your husband beating you up? Too bad, you can't go to the police or they'll deport your ass.

If they're in the USA illegally...

[Lord O' Bones]

If they're in the USA illegally...

No, goddamnit. America should be about not beating wives before worrying about resident status.

Didn't American awesomeness have shit to back it up other than ritual at one point?