(no subject)

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.

I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?

Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).

Or am I missing something?

Comments

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

How do you have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is illegal outside of very, very limited circumstances?

Well, let's look at the legal definitions.

Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as "the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely." Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an "unarticulated hunch." It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion. - source (http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reasonable-suspicion)

An objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time

[...]

A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause. A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch. - source (http://dictionary.getlegal.com/reasonable-suspicion).

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also sometimes called "arguable suspicion". - source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion)

So, as we can see, it requires more than just a hunch, and requires some facts or circumstances to back it up beyond just a whim or guess...

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

So again -- given that illegals don't look substantively different than tourists, legal aliens and lots of citizens in Arizona, what circumstance, outside of extremely limited and narrow contexts, will give law enforcement "reasonable suspicion" to demand papers?

And how will the provision allowing citizens to SUE if they think police departments aren't doing enough incentivize them?

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

As citizens we are already asked to produce our ID all of the time...whenever we buy something with a credit card, apply for a new job, rent an apartment, or get stopped by the cops for any reason. When we renew our driver's license. Or make a withdrawal at a bank. When we buy alcohol or cigarettes....or go through security at the airport, etc. I very recently had to produce my passport for my employer so my proof of citizenship could be on file. Are you also offended by all of these things? People are asked for the "papers" to prove who they are every day. How many times have you been asked for your social security number, or your driver's license?

There are many countries which ask that foreigners and tourists carry around their passport or ID, this is really not as unusual and harsh as you're making it sound. If you're not doing anything wrong and are obeying the law, what exactly do you have to fear or hide? In other countries that do have similar laws (such as Japan), it's unlikely you're gonna get pulled over and singled out at random unless you're actually doing something suspicious-- for example, hanging around a shady part of Roppongi late at night, where drug deals are known to go down, smelling like marijuana. Or acting drunk and disorderly on a street corner. Is it really that big of an inconvenience when there's very real drug and gang violence taking place?

If you really want to talk about harsh treatment of foreigners breaking laws across borders, lets talk about Indonesia. Or the middle east. Various countries in Africa, or China-- where bringing drugs across their borders can get you slapped with the death penalty on the spot.

Now, I am personally part native american, and I sometimes do get mistaken for being latina, or half white and something else. I sympathize with the possibility of people getting judge by their looks, I do. I'm not saying this law in Arizona was the best available option... but the federal government has been sitting on it hands doing nothing for long enough, while the situation has continued to get worse, and citizens felt the need to protect themselves. The law does stipulate that a cop would need some kind of reasonable suspicion. That means they can't just walk up to a woman minding her own business and harass her at complete random and with no reason. So yes, the way I read the bill, it sounds like they need to be doing something suspicious other than merely walking around with a different skin color.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

How many times have you been asked for your social security number, or your driver's license?

I don't see how that's relevant. If a clerk asks to see proof that I am old enough to buy beer (not that that's happened in more than a decade) it is because I am buying beer. The law here requires people to show papers if an officer has "reasonable suspicion" that person is an illegal -- I am asking what that "reasonable suspicion" looks like in practice because there are only a very few circumstances I can think of where it might be reasonable to assume someone is illegal based upon what they are DOING.

There are many countries which ask that foreigners and tourists carry around their passport or ID,

Not relevent -- we do that too. The question is what makes it reasonable for a police officer to approach any person and say "May I see you papers?" especially when they may be subjecting perfectly legal people AND citizens that inspection.

lets talk about Indonesia

No, let's not. This is MY country and the obscene actions of another country doesn't make me unconcerned about the questionable actions of my own.

I sympathize with the possibility of people getting judge by their looks, I do. I'm not saying this law in Arizona was the best available option...

The option between doing nothing and doing this is not a dichotomy with no options in between. And the possibility of both citizens and legal immigrants being caught up in this is not something to sympathize with -- it is something to be outraged at.

The law does stipulate that a cop would need some kind of reasonable suspicion

And for the nth time, I am asking what that would look like in practice. Because I can think of a few very narrow and limited circumstances where someone's ACTIONS may make me suspect his immigration status but those cases are so limited that it makes the law basically useless if cops are limited to them.

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

It's not irrelevant. The law states that a valid Arizona driver license is sufficient proof, as well as any other legally issued form of ID... things people are very likely to already easily have on hand in their wallet anyway. So I don't see how it's going to be any more inconvenience than we already have.

I gave you two real world examples of what it would look like in practice, in a country which actually has a very similar law. But your assumption that suspicious activity and behavior is extremely rare and negligible is your own. Obviously it isn't, or there would not be border violence occurring and 70% of Arizona citizens would not have felt it necessary to protect themselves from it. The law specifically states it's going to be targeting people conducting suspicious behavior, such as transporting, giving passage, or sheltering illegals across the border. This not the same things as targeting grandma while she's innocently walking her dog in the park, or a family at an ice cream stand-- no suspicious activity there.

[jennem.livejournal.com]

It's not a question of convenience, it's a question of liberty, a right to privacy, and a requirement that the government actually reasonably believe that you are breaking the law before they confront you. As libertarians like to say, it about the right of every citizen to ve left the hell alone.

Unless the Arizona law is truly limited to reasonable belief based on the actions of the individual, then cops will be able to stop you simply for the crime of breathing while brown. That's wrong. Period. We shouldn't give the government that kind of liberty infringing power, and conservatives, of all people, should understand why. You are, after all, the party of limited govenment.

The fact that the government could stop me while I'm out on my daily run . . . And imprison me until I prove to them that I am innocent (you know, as opposed to them proving that they were justified in stopping me) is a basic affront to the liberty and justice our legal system is based upon. Without reasonable suspicion, or to put it another way, probable cause, you're giving the government power it houldnt have. Malsadas is merely asking how the standard of reasonable suspicion is going to be applied, and what types of actions one must engage in to justify such a "stop."

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Well, based on my own interpretation of the law and the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion" -- no, it doesn't sound like you (for example) going on a morning run would be sufficient enough to justify a stop. So yes, they would first need to have a reasonable suspicion that you were breaking the law- not just a whim or hunch with nothing to back it up.

Stopping a vehicle in which there exists reasonable suspicion of concealing and transporting illegals across the border, however, might apply. Or stopping someone who has some reasonable suspicion of being connected to a gang or drug circle, etc. These are the kinds of situations I interpret from the law, and based on my own knowledge of countries who have similar laws and how they work in practice-- but in truth I can't really answer that until it starts being put into real practice.

What I actually think is going to happen, though, is that the federal government will oppose this law on the grounds that it is not the state's right. It may be overturned, and then we may see immigration reform being raised on a federal level. If I were to guess how this will play out, that would be it.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I gave you two real world examples of what it would look like in practice, in a country which actually has a very similar law. But your assumption that suspicious activity and behavior is extremely rare and negligible is your own.

Those examples are relevent to "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant. They are relevent to "reasonable suspicion" that someone is engaged in another illegal activity.

If all this law did was require police to check relevent identification for someone who is arrested for another crime, nobody would be making this big of a stink. The Arizona law requires police to check someone's status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is illegal. I am asking for the nth time for what that LOOKS like -- not someone doing something else illegal being observed by the police. What does a person have to be DOING for the police to reasonably suspect that person is illegal?

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Exactly my point-- there is *nothing* suspicious about someone simply walking down the street minding their own business just because they happen to be 'brown' and that would be an abuse of the law, as written. The Governor who signed the law has said so herself.

But this does give officers an additional provision to check the immigration status of people they encounter on duty--which more than likely could be for some other possibly related activity. Which makes sense when you consider this law came about in response to border violence and crimes committed by illegals. So now when someone gets nabbed on gang, smuggling or some other related charge, they can be checked and deported if it is reasonable to do so. As opposed to being thrown into our prison system or released back onto our streets.

What other illegal activities can be related to illegal immigration? There are people who enable illegals to enter and who transport them across the border, or give them shelter. There can be forgery crimes, identity theft, and instances of fake IDs, and those who enable or prepare such materials. I would be willing to bet these are the sorts of things which will be targeted, and those people involved who will be checked.

Sure many illegals who are not committing any crimes will probably go unnoticed unless they do something to call attention to themselves... but this law does give officers an added tool to deal with those who are actually committing crimes, which AZ has deemed as a serious problem and threat.

Not all police officers are corrupt and abuse the law, which seems to be the major the assumption here. It's this train of thinking that "all cops are white, and since all white people are racist by default, therefore it follows that all white cops will be corrupt and start harassing people simply for being brown." That is the talking point coming from the Left-- that this is just a racist law to get rid of all brown people and has nothing to do with people actually breaking the law or abusing our immigration system.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

That's not the language of the bill -- I repeat: if all this authorized was a check of documents when someone is stopped by police for actually doing something illegal, there'd be zero to near-zero concern.

You still won't say what will constitute the police having "reasonable suspicion" that a given person is illegal because the scope of their new authority is not limited to people "nabbed" on other criminal offenses by the language of the statute.

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

I have answered your question. We already established that the language of the bill states that there must be reasonable suspicion, which doesn't exist by merely walking around having a different skin color. You are reading into it to assume it's demanding race as the sole basis for this suspicion, because according to the legal definition, it needs to be something more than a hunch-- which is what basing it solely on skin color would be.

So logically what does that leave? I've given you numerous examples of behaviors/crimes which may be associated with illegals who are breaking the law. Right now, cops may go by a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and that's essentially what this law changes. It is asking them to enforce our already existing immigration laws.

This is what the purpose states:

Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers. Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties. - SB1070 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm)

What this means is all explained within the bill itself: SENATE BILL 1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf)

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

reasonable suspicion

You gave the law dictionary definition of that -- not the contexts that apply to reasonable suspicion of one's immigration status.

I've given you numerous examples of behaviors/crimes which may be associated with illegals who are breaking the law

No, you haven't. You've given examples of people breaking the law and getting stopped for that. Police have to examine the identity of people arrested for commiting crimes and the ones you listed are perpetrated by all sorts of people. What makes any given drug dealer in Arizona suspected of being an illegal alien?

This law is not written like seat belt laws that only apply if a cop stops you for speeding and notices your seat belt is not fastened. It is written to say that a cop may have reasonable suspicion that a person is illegal under any circumstance. You've repeatedly given examples of criminal behavior that would get a person arrested anyway, making the bill utterly unnecessary. I've provided one example of non-criminal behavior that might arose suspicion. A cop enters a restaurant and half the bus boys run out the back door -- now what other circumstances might rise to the level of reasonable suspicion?

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

The law is in line with already existing federal immigration laws, the only difference is it now gives the ability of state officers the right to enforce it, and calls for them to do so. This really isn't that different, radical, or new. What's "radical and new" about it, is that the state is now taking on the role of enforcement.

Of course illegal immigrants aren't the only ones to commit crimes. The difference between an illegal committing the same crime, is that the state now has the authority to enforce deportation.

A cop enters a restaurant and half the bus boys run out the back door -- now what other circumstances might rise to the level of reasonable suspicion?

Okay.

Now read the whole bill-- it states exactly what kind of situations apply. Most of which already have federal provisions in place, except now there is additional authority at the state level. We're not just talking about street cops here. For example, an illegal person applying for a job. Or applying for welfare. State officials and agencies will now have a role in verifying people's status.

You do have a point though. If these provisions already exist at a federal level, what makes the bill necessary? The question is whether these existing provisions are being sufficiently enforced.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

the only difference is it now gives the ability of state officers the right to enforce it, and calls for them to do so.

Immigration officers don't walk street beats watching people's behavior.

Now read the whole bill-- it states exactly what kind of situations apply.

Really? Then why have you been unwilling to answer the direct question?

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Well, looks like now they have edited the language of the bill to be more clear:

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/in-response-to-critics-arizona-tweaks-new-immigration-law-92495249.html#ixzz0mdlfFp2y

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

That's better -- but still needs analysis to see how the revisions plays with the rest of the bill's language and an explanation as to how the law is even remotely necessary if the ONLY time cops will check documents is now when they are doing things where they already take i.d. from a suspected criminal. That would be fairly silly and leaves major suspicion of the law still up in the air.

Oh, and GREAT source -- not one quote from a critic of the bill on the implications of the "fix" but lots of quotes from people saying fixing major language flaws in the law is just "tinkering" so liberals will shut up. That's some bang up reportng there.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

....whenever we buy something with a credit card...

Businesses are explicitly not allowed to ask for your ID when you use your credit card. If they try and force you, they can lose their merchant contract with the credit card companies.


...or get stopped by the cops for any reason.

Police can demand your drivers license if they stop you while driving. You are not required to carry or show ID in other circumstances. Police are not immigration officers.


If you're not doing anything wrong and are obeying the law, what exactly do you have to fear or hide?

Then call the police and ask them to search your house. You don't have anything to hide, right? It's called presumption of innocence and due process, and they are both in the Constitution.


...but the federal government has been sitting on it hands doing nothing for long enough, while the situation has continued to get worse...

Then why didn't the Republicans, who are complaining so loudly about it now, start doing anything about it ten years ago?

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Businesses are explicitly not allowed to ask for your ID when you use your credit card.

I get asked all the time, if my signature on the back of the card is faded or hard to read, or if I'm paying by check. Or if they need to verify my age for something I'm buying. Laws may vary from state to state on this, but I have been outright refused sale for failing to produce my ID at least twice (and neither times were for age restricted items). Even so, my point remains... there are literally so many situations where we might be asked to produce the proper "papers" already.

Then call the police and ask them to search your house. You don't have anything to hide, right? It's called presumption of innocence and due process, and they are both in the Constitution.

They can't just ask you for no reason. They need reasonable suspicion, which legally means they would need some kind of arguable fact or circumstance to support it, not just a hunch. And if you are a foreigner here legally, you *are* already required to carry your green card with you at all times, so there should be no problem.

Police can demand your drivers license if they stop you while driving. You are not required to carry or show ID in other circumstances. Police are not immigration officers.

The law is not demanding that they hunt for and seek out illegals, like an immigration officer. What this law does is say that if they have reasonable suspicion to suspect someone they encounter is breaking the law by being here illegally, they must ask. But again, this is if, and only if, there is reasonable suspicion to do so in the first place. The law also states that a valid AZ drivers license, and many other common forms of legally issued ID would be sufficient enough proof.

Then why didn't the Republicans, who are complaining so loudly about it now, start doing anything about it ten years ago?

I stated in my earlier comment that the federal government has failed to enforce the laws that already exist, and have failed to secure the borders--both parties have not taken action. Sure, Republicans have paid lip service around election time, because they know that's what their voters want to hear, but it unfortunately amounts to little more than empty rhetoric. The governor of AZ is among the first to actually stand up and do something (instead of just talk), and her approval ratings have jumped as a result. Now governors in other states (such as Texas) are looking at that and thinking gee look at that.....

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

I get asked all the time, if my signature on the back of the card is faded or hard to read...

Then you re-sign it in front of them.

...I have been outright refused sale for failing to produce my ID at least twice...

They have just violated their merchant agreement (http://consumerist.com/2008/02/apple-demands-id-with-credit-card-purchases-violates-merchant-agreement.html). Report them to your credit card company.

...there are literally so many situations where we might be asked to produce the proper "papers" already.

Thank you for contributing to the slippery slope. They require ID for all this other stuff, it shouldn't be a problem for them to require ID when I'm walking down the street, right? After they've checked it once, they should be able to check it again 20 feet down the road, right? I might have forgotten which card I showed them and slip up the second time!


They need reasonable suspicion, which legally means they would need some kind of arguable fact or circumstance to support it, not just a hunch.

The point of all the protest against this law is that the only legal directive given in the bill is "go by a hunch". What does this law do that probable cause laws already in place don't do? Nothing, except discriminate against brown people.



The law is not demanding that they hunt for and seek out illegals, like an immigration officer.

The law says citizens can sue their police department if they don't like the extent to which the police are cracking down. That is exactly what the law is demanding.

What this law does is say that if they have reasonable suspicion to suspect someone they encounter is breaking the law by being here illegally, they must ask.

Police are not immigration officers. If you pick up a suspect for an unrelated crime, and you find or suspect they are not here legally, you call INS.

The law also states that a valid AZ drivers license, and many other common forms of legally issued ID would be sufficient enough proof.

And if you are a legal citizen and a police officer asks for your papers and you don't have them, that's a six month sentence.



Now governors in other states (such as Texas) are looking at that and thinking gee look at that.....

Gee, that's a great unconstitutional law, let's try it too!

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Thank you for contributing to the slippery slope. They require ID for all this other stuff, it shouldn't be a problem for them to require ID when I'm walking down the street, right? After they've checked it once, they should be able to check it again 20 feet down the road, right? I might have forgotten which card I showed them and slip up the second time!

No, they can't just stop you while you're walking down the street and ask for no reason. I think you need to look up the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion". I posted it above, from a couple different sources.

The point of all the protest against this law is that the only legal directive given in the bill is "go by a hunch". What does this law do that probable cause laws already in place don't do? Nothing, except discriminate against brown people.

No it doesn't, it stipulates "reasonable suspicion", with like probable cause, requires something more substantial than a hunch.

The current laws are not being enforced, that's the problem. This law mandates that cops do their job and ask people they encounter if they have a legitimate reason to suspect they are breaking the law. Currently, many cops do not for various reasons--even if they suspect--one being a concern that illegals will not cooperate or report crimes. This is just saying that in situations like that, they can and should be asking.

And if you are a legal citizen and a police officer asks for your papers and you don't have them, that's a six month sentence.

Only if you fail to produce them. The law doesn't specifically state a time limit, but in my state if you get stopped while driving without your drivers license, you have like 24 or 48 hours to produce it...say, if you accidentally forgot or lost your wallet. Or say, if you weren't expecting to drive, but had to drive someone who was intoxicated or incapacitated in an emergency...they are lenient in these situations. I don't see why they couldn't be in AZ as well. But again, they probably wouldn't stop you in the first place unless you were doing something that looked fishy.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Actually all a cop has to do is say "they were responding to a tip" or "there were reported illegals at a party a block away" -- and they can generate scenarios for justifying stopping people.

The 'they cant stop you for walking down the street' argument is naive in the extreme...

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

No, we were discussing a scenario in which the law enabled cops to question someone, who happened to be walking down the street, based solely on their race. The law doesn't provide for that, and to do so would be abuse.

It has to be a lawful stop, and there needs to be reasonable suspicion. It has to be more than just someone's random 'hunch' and cannot be based solely on race. Read the bill, the recent items that were clarified.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

*ahem* The law IS abuse, since it's intended for people to be stopped....otherwise there would be no value to this law.


And notice these things were "clarified" only *after* people screamed loud enough.....?