2. Equal Protection: The EP clause of the 14th amendment says that all PERSONS (it doesn't say all legal aliens/citizens) are entitled to the equal protection of the law. The Supreme Court says that, where a law has a disparate impact on a particular race, it is subject to strict scrutiny (which means that the law will very likely be invalidated b/c it is scrutinized so heavily). Since most immigrants in Arizona are Latino and the Bill allows for race to be used as a factor in determining whether the person is illegal, there are obvious affects on the Latino community (illegal or legal. Immigrant or citizen).
Not to pick nits, but I thought Latino wasn't a race because they can be of any race? Asian-Latinos are Filipino, African-Latinos are Dominican, and so on, which is why they have that box to check on forms if one is a non-white Hispanic.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeMy point was, if you get pulled over, the cop is able to ask for ID, right? What makes people here without proper documentation any different than legal citizens?
We entrust police to enter a house without a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion a crime has been/ is being committed.
We entrust police to perform field sobriety test if there is reasonable suspicion a crime (DUI) is being committed. But somehow asking if somebody is a citizen is going too far? Why do the trained, professional law enforcement agents automatically get expected to do the wrong thing?
As far as I have always understood and practiced, if a police officer initiates a traffic stop of your vehicle they must show first show their own identification and give a valid reason for pulling you over before you need to show them anything.
I have been pulled over for speeding three times, and each time I have asked to see proof that their radar gun indeed registered my vehicle as going the speed they claim. They (VT and NH state cops in my case) have a little printout they can show you with an image of your car, plate #, and radar reading. Once it was legitimate, and I received a ticket. The other two times the officers immediately told me to not speed, be more careful, and let me go on my way and I never showed any ID or vehicle registration.
The point is that giving the police the ability to stop a person in the United States and ask them to prove if they are a citizen when there is suspicion of no other crime will set a bad precedent. It's entirely possible that the police departments in Arizona will only use this law responsibly, but the likelihood of it getting out of hand is too high to be worth the risk.
I've read a lot of extreme anti-immigration folks commenting on other websites. It's shocking to me that some cannot understand that this will lead to racial profiling. It's even more shocking to me that some do not understand why racial profiling is a very bad thing.
I don't know the best answer to illegal immigration problems, but this is certainly not it. Even disregarding the privacy violations, it could only ever be a temporary solution since it address none of the root causes of the problem.
Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her. Harry: That's a special feeling.
Originally posted by samoflangeThe point is that giving the police the ability to stop a person in the United States and ask them to prove if they are a citizen when there is suspicion of no other crime will set a bad precedent. It's entirely possible that the police departments in Arizona will only use this law responsibly, but the likelihood of it getting out of hand is too high to be worth the risk.
I'm not sure if it was on The W, but years ago I was arguing the constitutionality of the seat belt laws & the ability of a police officer to simply pull you over for no reason other than to check if you are wearing one.
I and other opponents of the law warned of a "slippery slope" & often mocked by those who warned of a chicken little syndrome. People who supported the "Click-it or Ticket" campaigns, or other similar movements to give the Police access to our personal space without proper cause, can look to their silence with those issues when trying to argue the constitutionality of the AZ law.
Once we allow them to check our property to "prevent" a problem for something that makes us feel good (as the seat-belt issue did for many), we will eventually deal with the consequences of our silence when the same logic is used for a law that is not quite as fuzzy feeling...
Originally posted by samoflangeAs far as I have always understood and practiced, if a police officer initiates a traffic stop of your vehicle they must show first show their own identification and give a valid reason for pulling you over before you need to show them anything.
If a officer is in uniform, s/he does not need to prove identity to you. If they pull you over, they do not have to demonstrate validity to you, they can ask for your license and registration as a measure of their safety. You are free to challenge such activity in court, but a refusal to produce license and registration (and in some states, proof of insurance) is grounds for arrest.
They are not required to prove anything to you. Of course, there may be some states who have those laws on the books, but I don't know of any and I can assure you the FOP would be in direct opposition and I would hear about it if there were. Speeding does not need to be proven by Radar. There are other ways to do it. I previously used the printout to attached to citations, but never showed it to an offender.
(edited by AWArulz on 29.4.10 1235)
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift
Read an interesting article the other day about how this law will (among other things) greatly harm Arizona's tourism industry. A lot of Latino tourists now might not want to come to the state out of fear of being hassled by law enforcement.
Originally posted by Big BadRead an interesting article the other day about how this law will (among other things) greatly harm Arizona's tourism industry. A lot of Latino tourists now might not want to come to the state out of fear of being hassled by law enforcement.
A large percentage of the local economy of border cities are Mexican citizens crossing to border to shop (for San Diego, I remember this being somewhere around 20%). We're talking about everyday things like groceries, clothing, and appliances. These are largely cash transactions. With a travel advisory in place by the Mexican Government, these day crossings will likely drop significantly.
If the law stands the economic impact should be significant enough to generate support for a repeal.
Originally posted by samoflange1. Preemption: the constitution says that states are not allowed to (1) create laws that are in conflict with express or IMPLIED decisions of the federal government, Congress (see the Supremacy Clause) and (2) create laws that attempt to govern an area of law that is usually not left to states. The argument is that the fed government has itself opted not to enact a law like this, which is a DECISION. Why should a state contradict this decision? Also, immigration law is usually a field of law left to the federal government because of obvious international implications (e.g. our relationship with another country).
I'll admit that I haven't been scouring the internet for the opinions of legal scholars on this particular issue, but as a law school grad and licensed attorney, the VERY FIRST THING that crossed my mind the INSTANT that I heard about this law was preemption. When the federal government has made it its business to control a particular issue in the interest of uniform national treatment or some other reason, state governments simply are not allowed to make laws respecting that area. When you go to law school and you learn about preemption in your Constitutional Law class, the very first example they give where preemption exists and state laws almost always get struck down is immigration law. Plain and simple, this law looks like an easy unanimous vote for unconstitutionality.
Originally posted by ZeruelNot to pick nits, but I thought Latino wasn't a race because they can be of any race? Asian-Latinos are Filipino, African-Latinos are Dominican, and so on, which is why they have that box to check on forms if one is a non-white Hispanic.
The part of the constitution that says strict scrutiny is applied to race-based discrimination actually refers to discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. And if that's not good enough to cover this law, strict scrutiny is also applied to laws that discriminate against non-citizens, so there's always that.
"Most illegal immigrants in Arizona are Hispanic" is nothing at all like "most Hispanics in Arizona are illegal immigrants." Suspecting someone of being an illegal immigrant because they are Hispanic, which is exactly what you are defending, is an example of assuming the latter.
How many white people on this board carry proof of citizenship with them at all times? What document do you have in your pocket right now that you think would be sufficient to prove your legal status in this country?
If you think your Driver's license is enough - you are wrong. Let's take a look at how the U.S. government checks ID for Medicare
U.S. Passport Certificate of Naturalization Certificate of U.S. Citizenship Documents Proving Citizenship If you do not have one of the above forms of identification you will have to prove your identity and citizenship using two different documents. To prove citizenship acceptable forms of documentation are:
U.S. birth certificate A Certification of birth issued by the Department of State A Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen A Certification of Birth Abroad A U.S. Citizen I.D. card An American Indian Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security with the classification code - KIC Final adoption decree showing the child's name and U.S. birthplace Evidence of civil service employment by the U.S. government before June 1976 An official military record of service showing a U.S. place of birth A Northern Mariana Identification Card If you do not have one of these forms of documentation proving citizenship there are a few other things which you can use, including:
Extract of U.S. hospital birth record established at time of birth and created more than five years before Medicare application date Life or health insurance listing a U.S. place of birth and created more than five years before Medicare application date Census records showing a U.S. place of birth or citizenship Admission papers from an institution such as a nursing home which show a U.S. place of birth Medical record created more than five years before application showing a U.S. place of birth Written affidavit Documents Proving Identity In order to receive Medicare benefits you must not only establish citizenship but also your identity. Acceptable documentation of identity includes:
Driver's license or state identity card Certificate of Indian Blood, or other U.S. American Indian/Alaska Native tribal document School identification card with a photograph of the individual U.S. military card or draft record Identification card issued by the federal, state, or local government with the same information included on driver's licenses Military dependent's identification card U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card For children under 16, an affidavit signed by a parent or guardian
So how many of you have a document in your posession, right now, that proves you are legal? I would bet only the non-citizens do.
I'm not going to carry a birth certificate or Passport with me at all times. I don't expect that all U.S. Citizens of Hispanic heritage should have to either. It is in no way fair to them to expect this.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeThe law does NOT give the police the ability to stop a person in the United States and ask them to prove if they are a citizen, when there are no other crimes.
What it does, is allow an officer making a lawful contact (pull over for a ticket, investigate another crime) to verify with the federal government IF a person is here legally, or is here Illegally.
I am pretty sure that any honest law enforcement officer you might ask would tell you that if he or she were to follow someone around long enough, especially if that person is driving, they would very quickly be given reason to stop them. Failure to signal, busted tail light, jaywalking, littering, speeding, talking on a cell phone while driving (in locales where that's illegal), loitering, etc. All this lawful contact hogwash is just that: hogwash. This is basically giving law enforcement the right to question any individual's citizenship status at the drop of a racially profiled hat.
I'd really like to know from those who oppose this law how exactly we would identify those who are here illegally? Really, I can understand believing this law might be unfair to those of Hispanic origin. I'm just trying to understand how we would possibly findout who is illegal short of illegal immigrants walking up to an INS agent and saying "I'm here illegally". Because it seems ANY other measure that would seek to find these people would be (perceived as) a gross violation of SOMEONE's rights.
Unless you don't see illegal immigrants as a problem, which I suppose constitutes an answer as well.
(Maybe this is where I roll my eyes at the notion of REPUBLICANS being seen as the "party of no".)
Originally posted by Reverend J ShaftUnless you don't see illegal immigrants as a problem, which I suppose constitutes an answer as well.
Do I think illegal immigration is a problem? Yes. But I don't think the answer is a bill like this.
The big issue is the economic situation in Mexico and Central America, and, more specific to Mexico, things like NAFTA which have had terrible impacts on important Mexican industries, like agriculture, due to regional Mexican farmers inability to compete with huge American subsidized agro-businesses (like, say, Monsanto) - which forces these workers to look ANYWHERE for work, usually in the U.S.
But that's a much more difficult conversation to have than saying, "Throw out the illegals."
Originally posted by StaggerLeeBUT, to not address the ones here illegally, who are costing taxpayers billions of dollars, is neglectful of the rights of those who are born here, or who immigrate legally.
We also receive the billions of dollars from illegals in the form of medicare and social security relief - paid by a population that will probably never end up claiming those benefits. And the toll they do take on our health care system is mostly due to the fact that they're working physically demanding jobs that have no benefits (jobs that would most likely be outsourced if immigrants weren't here to do them).
But it's really important to pass a bill that's probably unconstitutional and which doesn't actually address the roots of illegal immigration in order to make everyone feel like something is being done.
The formatting did not come across well. Your school ID and Driver's license are not enough to be proof of citizenship. They are in category 3 or 4. Only your military ID, if it shows your place of birth, would be accepted.
State issued Driver's licenses won't be accepted until all states meet the standards that have been delayed until 2012.
As late as 2008 Elliot Sptizer was pushing for Illegal Aliens to be able to get driver's licenses in NY. In 2003 CA was poised to provide them as well.
Scenario: Cop thinks you are an IA. Cop asks you for your id to look up status in a database. You don't have an ID on you. What do you think happens now? I'm pretty sure you don't just get to go home without a hassle. How exactly is that not requiring ANYBODY to prove they are here legally?
From my research, it looks like New Mexico may be a state where an IA can get a drivers license. This is a difficult question to research today due to a number of unhelpful "concern troll" questions out there that come up high in the results when searching this topic. The reason this is an issue - if IA can get a license in NM, then AZ won't take the neighboring states ID as good enough. Should all hispanics from NM need to carry a birth certificate to drive through Arizona?
Do me a favor and don't just loudly state an opinion or ask "Concern troll" questions. If you have something of substance, add it. I'm trying very hard to present arguments based on information, not just my feelings. I don't feel that all parties in this conversation are making that same effort.
Originally posted by Guru ZimIf you think your Driver's license is enough - you are wrong.
Serious question. Can you get an Arizona driver's license if you are not a US Citizen or someone in the country legally?
I should have quoted this reply. Yes, there are 11 states apparently that will issue an IA a driver's license. There are also many more that will issue a Temporary License to non-citizens for many reasons, including a pending amnesty request, and other pending actions. Pending just means that you filed, not that it was approved. I could file an amnesty request - no chance it gets approved but I could get a 1 year DL with it. Due to loopholes like this that are present in the Real ID law, it will not be likely that a DL would be accepted as proof of citizenship.
Oh, and under Arizona law, if you made a policy that it was good enough, but any citizen took you to court, you'd be personally liable for $1000 per day that the policy remained in effect until it was decided against you.
How about for natural born Citizens? I'm pretty sure there isn't one. Why can't anyone on the other side of the argument concede that we are more than likely going to be inconveniencing minorities based on the color of their skin?
Except for those stupid 3rd-party voters, eh? This comment/implication has come up a couple of times, and I don't see where AWA seriously suggested people shouldn't vote. Rather, that he thinks it's a waste of a vote to vote Libertarian.