(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]

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.