Racial profiling to be legalized!

[Reauland]

Stop and Identify laws are constitutional, they've been challenged already and passed muster, with the caveat that identification was assumed to be verbal. Returning to the "unreasonable" clause, it's not a very far leap from requiring people to identify themselves (truthfully) to the police to require people to carry and present proof of identity, and we already compel people to do so in a number of situations that are NOT driving a vehicle. Boarding a plane, for example, can frequently require proof of identity.

Or buying alcohol or a pack of smokes, for that matter.

 

[Skaw]

So.

We must now admit that the police CAN compel you to reveal your identity, thus it is not fully covered by the 4th or 5th Amendments. Just want be sue that we're on the same page there.

Yes, the police can ask who you are. No, you don't have to answer unless you become detained. And even then, you don't need an ID card to identify yourself, simply stating who you are is enough in the eyes of the law.

And we can agree that selectively pulling people off the street does not constitute an appropriate use of this power, and I'd wager that it would not pass Constitutional muster if someone tried it.

Of course, it IS legal to pull everyone in a given area for a variety of reasons, (sobriety checkpoint, speed trap, etc) but we'll leave that aside for the moment.

You're right. And if you are pulled in a sobriety checkpoint, and you're displaying probable cause you're drunk(failing the field test,) you're officially detained and must identify yourself. But again, you only need to do so verbally. Unless of course you were the driver of a vehicle.

Now.

What does the Arizona law, in full text, state?

Turning over any illegal immigrant to the Federal authorities if they've been detained and making it illegal to knowingly employ illegal immigrants or picking up illegals for work. I never argued otherwise, just that you're not required to carry identification with you, and the statutes of identifying yourself to police and that simply being Hispanic is not evidence to give probable cause, and it should never be.

Or buying alcohol or a pack of smokes, for that matter.

Retail compliance with the law has no bearing on you physically carrying identification with you everywhere you go. It just simply means that if asked to present identification, you're not going home with the alcohol or cigarettes if you aren't.

 

[Raesvelg]

Yes, the police can ask who you are. No, you don't have to answer unless you become detained. And even then, you don't need an ID card to identify yourself, simply stating who you are is enough in the eyes of the law.

Depending on circumstances, yes. Though as long as we're clear that "detain" is simply a situation where the cop has probable cause to suspect you in something and pulls you aside, rather than the cop outright arresting you.

You're right. And if you are pulled in a sobriety checkpoint, and you're displaying probable cause you're drunk(failing the field test,) you're officially detained and must identify yourself. But again, you only need to do so verbally. Unless of course you were the driver of a vehicle.

Arguable. If the cop has reason to suspect that the other person has been driving the car, he could request both. Or search the vehicle just for fun. Either of those.

Turning over any illegal immigrant to the Federal authorities if they've been detained and making it illegal to knowingly employ illegal immigrants or picking up illegals for work. I never argued otherwise, just that you're not required to carry identification with you, and the statutes of identifying yourself to police and that simply being Hispanic is not evidence to give probable cause, and it should never be.

Last I checked, the law was fairly straightforward.

The current (modified) bill, basically works like this; If a police officer stops you, (for a real reason, not for "being Hispanic"), and has probable cause to suspect you are an illegal alien, they can request identification from you. Driver's License, State ID, Federal ID, or pretty much any valid governmental ID card will suffice.

I find the "don't hire illegals" provision entertaining; it makes it illegal to hire people from a vehicle that impedes the flow of traffic. Interesting way to criminalize a particular variety of behavior.

Retail compliance with the law has no bearing on you physically carrying identification with you everywhere you go. It just simply means that if asked to present identification, you're not going home with the alcohol or cigarettes if you aren't.

It's a precedent issue. A situation in which you can be compelled to identify yourself for legal reasons. Specifically, to make sure that you aren't committing a crime. Sound familiar?

And ultimately, I think that this law, as modified, could probably pass Constitutional muster, depending on how well it's argued and the precise mood and balance of the court at the time.

You can scream all you like about your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, but I don't believe they apply to identification, and it's only a very small step from what we have as current precedents, to this law.

 

[Skaw]

You can scream all you like about your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, but I don't believe they apply to identification.

It doesn't matter what you believe, but any lawyer will tell you exactly what I've told.

But you know some cops in Arizona will be pulling people over for simply being Hispanic in the same way some cops pull over people for being Black. Because some people are racist, and some people are cops. And they've done it before.

 

[Raesvelg]

It doesn't matter what you believe, but any lawyer will tell you exactly what I've told.

Obviously not any lawyer, given the prevalence of stop & identify statutes, as well as the requirement to carry ID for things like boarding planes, buying cigarettes, driving cars, or any number of other activities.

You're stressing an absolute in a world of relative values.

By your reckoning, it is unlawful for anyone to require you to carry ID for any reason. Period.

Except that that is obviously not the case. The Constitution, and indeed the law in general, in both flexible and in a state of constant flux.

But you know some cops in Arizona will be pulling people over for simply being Hispanic in the same way some cops pull over people for being Black. Because some people are racist, and some people are cops. And they've done it before.

And your point is?

 

[Duddits]

To avoid being called a moron or a retard, I think I'll just leave this...

 

[Thelona]

That didn't stop a standing ovation for the Mexican president for slamming the immigration bill.



Look at em dance.


also the whole "nazi state, give me your papers" argument is bullshit, its already a federal law, and in the actual, new citizen handbook that's given to every LEGAL immigrant upon getting citizenship, it says to carry your citizenship documentation with you, and to be prepared to prove your legal status. and this isnt some new handbook updated since the Arizona law.

 

[Duddits]

That didn't stop a standing ovation for the Mexican president for slamming the immigration bill.



Look at em dance.


also the whole "nazi state, give me your papers" argument is bullshit, its already a federal law, and in the actual, new citizen handbook that's given to every LEGAL immigrant upon getting citizenship, it says to carry your citizenship documentation with you, and to be prepared to prove your legal status. and this isnt some new handbook updated since the Arizona law.

To be honest...
I think all those jerkoffs in D.C. would give the Mexican president a standing ovation if he told them he likes Taco Bell. Who the fuck are they kidding?

 

[Lukas]

She looks suspicious.

 

[Xalioniaf]

You know, I wasn't aware that my president could speak fluent English.
Learn something every day.

 

[Pompidou]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100729/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration

Looks like the law's out of commission, at least indefinitely.

 

[Thelona]

yeah looks like Raesvelg called this one, they shot it don't on the basis of preemption, that Arizona is stepping in the feds jurisdiction.

 

[Hexx]

yeah looks like Raesvelg called this one, they shot it don't on the basis of preemption, that Arizona is stepping in the feds jurisdiction.

Anyone with half a brain saw this one coming. There's a reason why the Fed Govt handles immigration which is that it's the one more suited to handling it since we are one nation vs fifty states. If the Feds allowed for every state to dictate its own immigration laws, we would end up with a hodgepodge of difficult to enforce immigration laws, and an even more over-worked police force (in some states). Arizonan's as a whole fed into illegal immigrants moving to their state. They're the ones who profited or saved money thanks to the cheap labor illegals provide, but now because its the scapegoat of the month (or year?) they try to turn on the monster they've created.

Don't get me wrong, illegal immigrants are just as bad. They act like they're being victimized when in fact they really aren't. You're here illegally, what did you expect? Not all, but a fair bunch of them have some wierd sense of entitlement that really just doesn't make sense. I'm all for immigration reform and would like for some sort of balance to be reached, but the way the state of Arizona is doing it is flat out wrong. It's one thing to want illegal immigrants out of your state, but at the same time you are antagonizing those who have gone through all of the legal channels to become legal residents.

 

[Lukas]

Semi-necro but I don't care:

Did anyone see Brewer debate Goddard? And her post-debate run-in with the press about the headless bodies? Pissed myself laughing. That bitch is such a fucking mess. If she retains her position it would prove that anti-immigration rhetoric is more important than competence to the people of AZ.