Arizona's going a bit crazy

Two bills that are working their way through Arizona have gotten some national attention.

The illegal immigrant bill is the one that has gotten the most attention. The main reason that it's gotten attention is because it gives police officers the right to stop anyone whom they believe could be an illegal immigrant, and ask them to show proof of their legal status. There are cries of potential profiling and things like that. It's gotten the most attention mainly because Obama called the legislation "misguided".

The other bill is one that requires any presidential candidates to provide birth certificates proving their citizenship. Of course, the Republicans aren't doing this because they believe Obama was born in Kenya, they merely want to do it so that Obama will no longer have to face such silly questions.

_________________
AnAp Secret Santa 2011 Wish List
101 Movies I Need to See

Ytoabn wrote:

Two bills that are working their way through Arizona have gotten some national attention.

The illegal immigrant bill is the one that has gotten the most attention. The main reason that it's gotten attention is because it gives police officers the right to stop anyone whom they believe could be an illegal immigrant, and ask them to show proof of their legal status. There are cries of potential profiling and things like that. It's gotten the most attention mainly because Obama called the legislation "misguided".

That one was signed yesterday by the governor, so it's a done deal. However, it would be likely to withstand a Constitutional challenge. Personally, I'm conflicted on the bill. I support taking a strong stance against illegal immigration, and I think this bill does alot of things right. Unfortunately it does one thing wrong, and that's the thing YT pointed out.

I'm not so much concerned about profiling as I am the idea that police can stop any person and force them to "show their papers" without any evidence of a crime. Now every person in Arizona - even natural-born citizens - have to carry proof of citizenship at all times or risk arrest. That requirement - that you need proof of ID & citizenship just to walk down the street - is deeply un-American and has repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional.

Moreover, this bill grants too much authority to police and is wide open to abuse. Now in Arizona, if you do anything to piss off a cop (even if it's not a crime), he can demand to see your papers under the new law. Left your ID at home? Too young to have a driver's license? Don't look like the photo on your ID? Tough luck, he's gonna drag you downtown, and you're gonna sit in the can for a few days while they sort it out - and trust me, they're in no hurry. And if you were driving at the time, you can be sure they'll impound your car, search it's interior, etc. The fourth amendment is pretty much out the window. All because you wore a Cubs sweatshirt and the cop is a Diamondbacks fan.

Here's one thing that I really don't understand about demanding papers. You hear stories of different people who are stopped by police because they suspect them of a crime, and if they refuse to show IDs, the police simply arrest them for obstruction of justice or something like that. Is that considered abuse of power, or is that how the law is supposed to function?

_________________
AnAp Secret Santa 2011 Wish List
101 Movies I Need to See

Yeah, that's pretty outrageous. How the hell does one determine whether another is or is not an illegal immigrant? Am I allowed to ask the officer why I need to show proof of citizenship, or is he going to haul my ass to jail for being uppity?

Glad I don't live in Arizona I guess.

_________________
"The only good race pace is a suicide pace, and today looks like a good day to die."

--Steve Prefontaine

	Ytoabn wrote:
	Here's one thing that I really don't understand about demanding papers. You hear stories of different people who are stopped by police because they suspect them of a crime, and if they refuse to show IDs, the police simply arrest them for obstruction of justice or something like that. Is that considered abuse of power, or is that how the law is supposed to function?

It depends on what you mean by "suspected of a crime". It also varies from state to state. In some states, the cops can demand that you identify yourself at any time and for any reason. In those states, you need only state your name and maybe address - you don't have to show ID. Some states have tried to require ID, but such laws have been found unconstitutional.

Now, if there's evidence that you've committed a crime, that's a different story. Let's say a cop catches you littering and writes you a ticket. If you don't have ID with you, he can detain (i.e. arrest) you long enough to establish your identity. This may mean that he walks you back to your car where you left your DL, or it may mean he takes you to the station and runs your prints. Regardless, he's not arresting you because you have no ID, he's arresting you because he has evidence (not just suspicion) that you've committed a crime.

As far as YT"s example of arresting someone for obstruction of justice, I'm sure it happens, and it's total BS, absolutely an abuse of power. You have to remember these are cops, though, so they can do pretty much whatever they want with impunity. Sure you can complain, but who's going to listen? It's your word against his, and our society is sadly all-to-willing to say, "He's got a tough job - who are we to question him?"

Ytoabn wrote:

The illegal immigrant bill is the one that has gotten the most attention. The main reason that it's gotten attention is because it gives police officers the right to stop anyone whom they believe could be an illegal immigrant, and ask them to show proof of their legal status. There are cries of potential profiling and things like that. It's gotten the most attention mainly because Obama called the legislation "misguided".

Sort of like his Healthcare deform?

Yeah, I hope this gets ruled unconstitutional real soon. While I don't like illegal immigrants, having to show someone your papers is reminiscent of Soviet Russia. And while the politicians are trying to push us that way more and more every day, we're not there yet.

	TrueFlog wrote:
	If you don't have ID with you, he can detain (i.e. arrest) you long enough to establish your identity.

Nope. Detaining an individual and arresting them are separate events that can, but don't necessarily have to, overlap. Police officers can detain someone on different circumstances than arresting them, and vice versa. This is an imperfect explanation, but think of arrest as "the next step" beyond detention. If a police officer places you in cuffs and has you sit in the squad car or on the curb but lets you go after things check out, that's detention. This can be done when there is uncertainty about the presence of weapons on the individual, or if there's uncertainty about a group of people and their involvement in criminal activity and the police cuff everyone until they can clear them of suspicion right then and there. If they proceed to haul that individual under arrest, they must then formally read them their Miranda rights and go through all the administrative and legal processes required by law at the police station. This may seem like a small distinction, but it is HUGE.

----

I agree that this is certainly not the way to go about controlling or changing how immigration into this country works. It's as if someone in Arizona went "Yes, to address the problem of immigration, lets implement something that will inevitably lead to egregious violations of our civil rights and dignity as human beings whether we admit it or not."

Actually, a formal reading of the Miranda rights is only necessary if they want anything you say during an interrogation to be used in court. They can read you your rights immediately before the interrogation begins, or not at all, if you're naive or ignorant of the law and they don't necessarily need your statements to be official.

_________________
Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space.

My brother got off a charge once because the officer who arrested him forgot to give him his Miranda Rights.

_________________
Bleep boop

	Sweet Garbonzo wrote:
	My brother got off a charge once because the officer who arrested him forgot to give him his Miranda Rights.

You'd be surprised how often it comes up.

	Erunanton wrote:
	Actually, a formal reading of the Miranda rights is only necessary if they want anything you say during an interrogation to be used in court. They can read you your rights immediately before the interrogation begins, or not at all, if you're naive or ignorant of the law and they don't necessarily need your statements to be official.

This.

What annoys me most about this law is that apparently a majority of Americans support it. I don't know if this is proves that I'm in a little bubble where I believe that everyone around me realizes this bill goes to far, or if the opposition to this law is just much more energetic than the support.

Oh yeah, they signed a slight change to the bill

People were annoyed that some part of the bill said that the police couldn't make race "soley" the deciding factor. People interpreted that police would simply say, "Oh, well he has a funny looking hat AND he looks Mexican, now I can stop him". They took out the word soley, but the bill is essentially the same.

_________________
AnAp Secret Santa 2011 Wish List
101 Movies I Need to See

MMS would be a better authority on the subject that I, but as I understand the law as written, the standard for police to be able to use the provisions of the law is no more than is needed for them to search your car. What the average person refers to as "reasonable suspicion" is not the same as the legal terms.

Rush Limbaugh put it in an interesting light. You are asked for your ID when you use a credit card, are stopped by the police, when you write a check, when you try to get a job, maybe even now when you board a plane or purchase tickets or what have you.

Also, part of the group of retards who is trying to boycott Arizona is boycotting Arizona Iced Tea. Rolling Eyes

I don't think that tea is even made in Arizona...

_________________
Bleep boop