Immigration Enforcement

[twowls 217]

Haven't heard anything, so I'll post the relevant text now:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL [OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 21

STATE] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

Here it is again in clear terms: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien..."

Your contention that a stop must have been made, and must have been based on an alleged illegal act is unsupported by the text of the bill.

"Lawful contact" is any contact that does not violate the law. Any contact. Seeing a person. That's lawful contact. The layman's translation is that if an officer lays eyes on someone who could reasonably be supposed to be illegal, he may detain and demand documentation. Lawful contact. Not detention in the process of a crime. Not inquiry around suspicion of a crime.

If you interpret lawful contact to mean getting stopped for an unrelated, legally prosecutable offense, fine. But the language of the bill doesn't describe or support that.

I am eager to hear your rebuttal with citations and analyses.

eta: wow formatting fail. sorry!

Edited May 23, 2010 by twowls

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Haven't heard anything, so I'll post the relevant text now:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL [OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 21

STATE] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

Here it is again in clear terms: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien..."

Your contention that a stop must have been made, and must have been based on an alleged illegal act is unsupported by the text of the bill.

"Lawful contact" is any contact that does not violate the law. Any contact. Seeing a person. That's lawful contact. The layman's translation is that if an officer lays eyes on someone who could reasonably be supposed to be illegal, he may detain and demand documentation. Lawful contact. Not detention in the process of a crime. Not inquiry around suspicion of a crime.

If you interpret lawful contact to mean getting stopped for an unrelated, legally prosecutable offense, fine. But the language of the bill doesn't describe or support that.

I am eager to hear your rebuttal with citations and analyses.

eta: wow formatting fail. sorry!

That's actually the first draft: they changed contact to stop. IE If you go to the police, you cannot be questioned.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Basic misrepresentation. The proposal does not require police to stop people if they "look a certain way," and if you believe it does, then the anti-AZ SB1070 have done their job on you. What it does is allow local and state law enforcement, where reasonable suspicion exists to inquire about and confirm the immigration status of someone they have already lawfully stopped. Major difference, there.

The more I look at the law the more I realize it does nothing. Every example that has been mentioned as reasonable suspicion in this forum is some form of racial or unacceptable profiling, ie. speaking spanish, no ID, looking like a day laborer etc. Likely your going to have a majority of police wanting to avoid trouble and simply not ask a dang thing. The few who do, are going to get thrown out on temporary leave while the courts wrangle with this.

If I was an AZ police officer, I know I wouldn't touch this issue with a ten foot pole, it isn't worth losing a job over.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Sousuke

[twowls 217]

That's actually the first draft: they changed contact to stop. IE If you go to the police, you cannot be questioned.

I don't understand the relationship between your first sentence and your second, but wow, really? So they've explicitly said that in the event of a lawful stop for other reasons, etc etc? I'll keep researching to understand better. Can you explain your second statement? I don't understand how it relates. Forgive me if I'm missing the obvious.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't understand the relationship between your first sentence and your second, but wow, really? So they've explicitly said that in the event of a lawful stop for other reasons, etc etc? I'll keep researching to understand better. Can you explain your second statement? I don't understand how it relates. Forgive me if I'm missing the obvious.

Lawful contact basically means any time you come in contact with police through legal means. This can include if your having an emergency and you need to call for help. By changing it to lawful stop, it limits the police to only asking when they have stopped you for a suspected crime or civil offense.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Lawful contact basically means any time you come in contact with police through legal means. This can include if your having an emergency and you need to call for help. By changing it to lawful stop, it limits the police to only asking when they have stopped you for a suspected crime or civil offense.

I should add in the case of AZ "or are going to commit a crime or offense in the near future", see stop and identify.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Sousuke

[Pooky 3,348]

Haven't heard anything, so I'll post the relevant text now:

Whoa there! Did no-one tell you that patience is a virtue? Or is it a crime for someone here to have a life and fit in Sunday dinner and family time, rather than sit on the PC and wait to respond to comments?

Thank you Sousuke for stepping in and filling in our friend on what is actually in AZ SB1070, as pertains lawful stop in place of lawful contact. As I said in an earlier post, do your reading before you post. I'll also add that you should check and counter-check everything, too, as the first site I pulled up also had the earlier wording, so the mistake made is understandable, if avoidable.

You also mentioned in an earlier response that I was "responding to my politics rather than my point". I don't particularly care what your politics may be. The 70% of the country that support AZ and immigration enforcement would, I suspect, not care either. The AZ proposal mirrors Federal law for a good reason. It is a proposal to get done at local law enforcement level what is not being done at Federal level. If the Federal government was doing its job on immigration enforcement, the AZ proposal would not be necessary.

Don't complain that AZ may step on a few illegal immigrant toes. Don't complain that up to 17 other states may follow AZ's lead and enact similar legislation. Rather, complain that both sides in Washington have been stepping on the American citizens' and legal immigrants' toes for way too long now. If the AZ proposal energises the electorate to join the debate and beat back the amnesty proposal currently being prepared in Washington, then it will have been worth it.

[evli1966 88]

Don't complain that AZ may step on a few illegal immigrant toes. Don't complain that up to 17 other states may follow AZ's lead and enact similar legislation. Rather, complain that both sides in Washington have been stepping on the American citizens' and legal immigrants' toes for way too long now. If the AZ proposal energises the electorate to join the debate and beat back the amnesty proposal currently being prepared in Washington, then it will have been worth it.

[ScottThuy 140]

I wish we didnt have to wait for a new Governor to get it implimented here in FL... one thing that comes into play in the AZ law is the fact that once an illegal is taken into state or local custody, the federal government will reimburse the state for the cost of housing etc for that person... a great way for the state andlocal govt to make up shortfalls in a recession....

As it stands in FL, a cop can ask for ID for just about any reason and one must have ID or be able to prove who you are... it sux that ICE does not support the local and state govt by taking the people into custody from the local and state agengies when called... and once in custody they dont do the right thing and hit the eject button immediately...

[evli1966 88]

As it stands in FL, a cop can ask for ID for just about any reason and one must have ID or be able to prove who you are... it sux that ICE does not support the local and state govt by taking the people into custody from the local and state agengies when called... and once in custody they dont do the right thing and hit the eject button immediately...

ICE does not support the local and state govt by taking the people into custody from the local and state agengies when called... and once in custody they dont do the right thing and hit the eject button immediately

[twowls 217]

Whoa there! Did no-one tell you that patience is a virtue? Or is it a crime for someone here to have a life and fit in Sunday dinner and family time, rather than sit on the PC and wait to respond to comments?

Thank you Sousuke for stepping in and filling in our friend on what is actually in AZ SB1070, as pertains lawful stop in place of lawful contact. As I said in an earlier post, do your reading before you post. I'll also add that you should check and counter-check everything, too, as the first site I pulled up also had the earlier wording, so the mistake made is understandable, if avoidable.

You also mentioned in an earlier response that I was "responding to my politics rather than my point". I don't particularly care what your politics may be. The 70% of the country that support AZ and immigration enforcement would, I suspect, not care either. The AZ proposal mirrors Federal law for a good reason. It is a proposal to get done at local law enforcement level what is not being done at Federal level. If the Federal government was doing its job on immigration enforcement, the AZ proposal would not be necessary.

Don't complain that AZ may step on a few illegal immigrant toes. Don't complain that up to 17 other states may follow AZ's lead and enact similar legislation. Rather, complain that both sides in Washington have been stepping on the American citizens' and legal immigrants' toes for way too long now. If the AZ proposal energises the electorate to join the debate and beat back the amnesty proposal currently being prepared in Washington, then it will have been worth it.

Treat yourself to whatever reality choice makes you feel most superior. I've been respectful to you from get; you've condescended and dismissed. You've cherry-picked wording from me and only responded to what you can stomp on most readily. It's all Internet Cowardice and Beatdown 101. I do believe this proposal and its language (still) encourage authorities, in practice, to create an atmosphere of fear and injustice for minorities. You think it's great; great. Enjoy your strawberries.

And as for your "70%," which you again decline to cite and support: laws of the country don't exist to reflect the majority. They exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the ignorant masses who would sooner say "I've got mine; #### the rest" than do the work of evolving in any progressive spirit for the good of the whole.

I won't press you on the points I brought up that you still (glaringly) haven't addressed; it's obvious that an actual respectful debate on the merits and specifics is not at hand.

[twowls 217]

Lawful contact basically means any time you come in contact with police through legal means. This can include if your having an emergency and you need to call for help. By changing it to lawful stop, it limits the police to only asking when they have stopped you for a suspected crime or civil offense.

Thank you. Although your addendum throws a whole new wrench in the works. Suspicion of, etc. What a mess. But thanks.

[evli1966 88]

Treat yourself to whatever reality choice makes you feel most superior. I've been respectful to you from get; you've condescended and dismissed. You've cherry-picked wording from me and only responded to what you can stomp on most readily. It's all Internet Cowardice and Beatdown 101. I do believe this proposal and its language (still) encourage authorities, in practice, to create an atmosphere of fear and injustice for minorities. You think it's great; great. Enjoy your strawberries.

And as for your "70%," which you again decline to cite and support: laws of the country don't exist to reflect the majority. They exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the ignorant masses who would sooner say "I've got mine; #### the rest" than do the work of evolving in any progressive spirit for the good of the whole.

I won't press you on the points I brought up that you still (glaringly) haven't addressed; it's obvious that an actual respectful debate on the merits and specifics is not at hand.

I am not sure whathappen between the 2 of you but I assure you that you if a legal citizen of the USA have a right to your opinion of the laws and the right to speak as does anyone else. I will defend your right even if it disagrees with my opinions.

With that said!

Change came here in the USA when settlers landed and took land from the Native Americans.

Change came here in the USA when we the people broke from the tyranny of at that time England

Change came here in the USA when when we the people disagreed with an election; the resulting Emancipation Proclamation was a war tactic. My personal believe is this should have been done long before but would have been blocked somehow the war allowed this step to be taken without intervening politics of that time.

Change came through out the 1800's and 1900's with the passing Civil Right's laws which were needed and some if not most are still needed to protect MINORITIES.

Change came here in the USA regarding Immigration started in 1790 with the Naturalization ACT and continues to evolve and due to the unrestricted flow of immigrants to the USA these changes has limited the number of immigrants entering the USA each year. These subsequent laws unfortunately classify immigrants as either legal and illegal. (if needed I will provide a definition of legal and illegal for clarification)

We the people of the USA have a say in the direction of the laws of our country; we the people include legal citizens of this country which inturns include the ethnic minorities you are speaking of.

When a poll is taken and the statement of 70% of the people are for the laws this includes 70% of the minorities as well. Please do not twist the Minority complaint to fit your argument.

Fact 70%+ of the people of the USA which legal citizens of all ethnicities are for this law and others that are soon to be following it.

This link is to the PEW Research Center POLL for this law. http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2010/05/post_387.html

Interesting enough it supports the above stement of 70+% for the law.

If broken down to say democrats it is a split decision where young people 30 or under the mjority oppose the law but the majority are for requiring people to produce documents verifing their legal status.

This is why a mix of the population is polled not a targeted ethnic group, political group, religieous etc.

A time has come for a Change once again:

We the People of the USA can not sustain the untempered flow of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to our country.

We must stand up and support strong immigration laws which not only prevents illegal immigration but stops it at the borders.

[twowls 217]

I am not sure whathappen between the 2 of you but I assure you that you if a legal citizen of the USA have a right to your opinion of the laws and the right to speak as does anyone else. I will defend your right even if it disagrees with my opinions.

With that said!

Change came here in the USA when settlers landed and took land from the Native Americans.

Change came here in the USA when we the people broke from the tyranny of at that time England

Change came here in the USA when when we the people disagreed with an election; the resulting Emancipation Proclamation was a war tactic. My personal believe is this should have been done long before but would have been blocked somehow the war allowed this step to be taken without intervening politics of that time.

Change came through out the 1800's and 1900's with the passing Civil Right's laws which were needed and some if not most are still needed to protect MINORITIES.

Change came here in the USA regarding Immigration started in 1790 with the Naturalization ACT and continues to evolve and due to the unrestricted flow of immigrants to the USA these changes has limited the number of immigrants entering the USA each year. These subsequent laws unfortunately classify immigrants as either legal and illegal. (if needed I will provide a definition of legal and illegal for clarification)

We the people of the USA have a say in the direction of the laws of our country; we the people include legal citizens of this country which inturns include the ethnic minorities you are speaking of.

When a poll is taken and the statement of 70% of the people are for the laws this includes 70% of the minorities as well. Please do not twist the Minority complaint to fit your argument.

Fact 70%+ of the people of the USA which legal citizens of all ethnicities are for this law and others that are soon to be following it.

This link is to the PEW Research Center POLL for this law. http://blogs.chron.c...5/post_387.html

Interesting enough it supports the above stement of 70+% for the law.

If broken down to say democrats it is a split decision where young people 30 or under the mjority oppose the law but the majority are for requiring people to produce documents verifing their legal status.

This is why a mix of the population is polled not a targeted ethnic group, political group, religieous etc.

A time has come for a Change once again:

We the People of the USA can not sustain the untempered flow of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to our country.

We must stand up and support strong immigration laws which not only prevents illegal immigration but stops it at the borders.

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my point about majority opinion. And frankly, I can't understand the majority of your post; I'm sorry. If you'd like to understand more about the vagaries of polling, I'd suggest doing research at fivethirtyeight.com. It will explain how time of day, land line versus cell line, and regional focus produce any poll result you want.

But again, the point is not the accuracy of any poll--although you seem to be arguing for the legitimacy and power of their results anyway. The point is that what the majority wants is not really relevant to social justice. If it were, your "black friend" would still be using a separate drinking fountain.

I do thank you for your respectful reply though.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my point about majority opinion. And frankly, I can't understand the majority of your post; I'm sorry. If you'd like to understand more about the vagaries of polling, I'd suggest doing research at fivethirtyeight.com. It will explain how time of day, land line versus cell line, and regional focus produce any poll result you want.

But again, the point is not the accuracy of any poll--although you seem to be arguing for the legitimacy and power of their results anyway. The point is that what the majority wants is not really relevant to social justice. If it were, your "black friend" would still be using a separate drinking fountain.

I do thank you for your respectful reply though.

I get what your saying about majority opinion. For instance, I believe roughly 59% of Americans supported interning American citizens of Japanese Ancestry. A majority never means its right. (and I'm not implying the AZ law equals Japanese internment!!!)

To me its very clear why other states stop at arrest and don't provide opportunities at a legal stop. They are smart and are covering their legal tails, something AZ hasn't done.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Sousuke