One-Week Thread: Arizona's new immigration law

[flimseycauldron]

In 2008 175 laws dealing with illegal immigration were passed by 39 states. So clearly immigration issues are not restricted to the Federal government. Secondly, since this law is based upon federal law (and we have established the Federal right to impose legislation upon illegal immigrants) how can we take Arizona to task for the same thing the Federal government is doing? Please see my above posts.

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

1. Will SB1070 force police to racially profile?

SB1070 says police cannot solely consider race, color or national origin.

It also says officers can only ask during a valid traffic stop or an investigation with probable cause.

In short, for those who say it allows officers to profile... it doesn't.

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

ETA: Further Proof that Obama is hypocrytical? He recently, and quietly I might add, expanded the budget for the Secure Communities Act. The act allows that aliens stopped for a crime will have their fingerprints run through the FBI and forwarded to ICE who will check immigration status. How is this any worse than what Arizona is claiming to do? That is, arrest someone on suspicion of a crime and check the their immigration status? In this case there isn't even a request for papers! They simply run your prints!

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Wab

And a driver's licence is not recognised as federal ID and in many states it is not proof of status.

Yeah. It is recognized.

The alternative would be...?

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Yeah. It is recognized.

Only of it complies with the requirements of Real ID which most states are yet to introduce.

The alternative would be...?

It's up to proponents to make the stupid law work.

[Lord Godric]

I think the most crucial question to this law has been asked in this thread already: what constitues suspicion. This law is just asking to be abused by authorities, as "suspicion" seems to rest solely on the shoulders on one's nationality.

[MHPFAN]

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

I think the most crucial question to this law has been asked in this thread already: what constitues suspicion. This law is just asking to be abused by authorities, as "suspicion" seems to rest solely on the shoulders on one's nationality.

To be honest, a law that is based solely on subjective "data" is bad news. I am Puerto Rican and my skin color is the same as any immigrant who doesn't have automatic U.S. citizenship. I can't begin to describe how much I detest this new law. According to what I've read, if I were in Arizona and the police decided that I look too Hispanic to be a citizen, and since, obviously I'm Puerto Rican and can't produce papers, I could be arrested and jailed for 6 months and pay a fine of $2,500. So many things wrong, I'm literally left speechless.

[mac_attack]

I hate this law, to be perfectly honest. It is racial profiling. It is up to the policemen to decide what is "suspicious" (and speaking from personal experience, I know way too many people, policemen included, who think that "looking Mexican" is synonymous with "being suspicious"). I know several people, including family members, who've been pulled over for no reason and were harassed by police. My aunt was once pulled over and the policeman pulling her over checked who she was and made sure the car she was driving was really hers...she hadn't been speeding or doing anything wrong. She just looked too Mexican to be driving a nice car, so he made up an excuse and pulled her over. It's not uncommon at all and it's being naive to think that the police in Arizona will actually wait for an opportunity at a valid traffic stop.

According to a woman I know who currently lives in Arizona, racial profiling is already a big problem there...I hope no one minds if I repost something she wrote on her wall yesterday:

It’s racial profiling, it’s stopping you, questioning you only because of the color of your skin. As for the people saying "well a few cops racially profile people anyway and they aren't going to stop" - they are not few and this bill fans the flame of their already “justified” egos, this now forces those who would not normally discriminate or profile others to be required to do so "by law". Before this bill – they (Sheriff Joe and his crew) would dominate/close off prominent Latino neighborhoods and do "routine" checks. That’s major and wrong!

I am from Arizona and this is not based on media coverage or what it so conveniently decides to leave out. This is truth. These are innocent human, AMERICAN lives just likes yours and mine that happen to be singled out because of their looks or their accent. I am not speaking of the adults, who have chosen to come here illegally. Changes in immigration laws do need to be made and soon, but not this way.

Guilty until proven innocent, living with worry and fear for yourself and your family in AMERICA - because of your hair and skin… How would you feel if the profile was you, a legal immigrant, or maybe even born and raised here – yet around every corner, just walking down the street you could be pulled aside and questioned, treated like a criminal JUST because the color of your skin or the shape of your eyes makes you seem suspicious… What will come after this?!

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

I think the most crucial question to this law has been asked in this thread already: what constitues suspicion. This law is just asking to be abused by authorities, as "suspicion" seems to rest solely on the shoulders on one's nationality.

To re-re-quote myself:

And also they have removed the word solely from the law so that it reads that police cannot consider race, color or national origin.

In short, for those who say it allows officers to profile... it doesn't.

Originally Posted by MHPFAN

According to what I've read, if I were in Arizona and the police decided that I look too Hispanic to be a citizen, and since, obviously I'm Puerto Rican and can't produce papers, I could be arrested and jailed for 6 months and pay a fine of $2,500. So many things wrong, I'm literally left speechless.

What have you read? So you understand that SB 1070 is based upon Federal Law, right?

The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.

The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of "pre-emption," which means a state can't adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.

The Arizon law is simply a retooling of the Federal Law. I think that if there are issues with people carrying papers then they need to look at the Federal Government who A) already makes it a requirement to carry papers and B) asking the Federal Government why they have not been enforcing their own laws to the point where states have to take action? You'll also note that the Governor has signed an executive order requiring officers to have training in what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

I also have to ask why 70% of Arizonans approve of the law? Is anyone here conversant with the issues that Arizona faces and have alternate solutions to border security, crimes committed by illegal aliens etc.? It's all easy to cry foul without actually understanding the situation at hand.

I do not think it likely that this will go all the way to the SC. If it does it will open doors to look at the Federal Immigration laws...

Originally Posted by mac_attack

It is up to the policemen to decide what is "suspicious"

No, it's not. They have to take training on what is suspicious behaviour and it has to be reasonable. They aren't just throwing the officers out there.

[Lord Godric]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

To re-re-quote myself:

I read what you posted already. But that doesn't answer the question what constitues suspicion. What is typical suspicious behavior of illegal immigrants? Do they do certain acts that legal immigrants do not do? How can one tell an illegal immigrant by looking at them?

You can tell me until you are red in the face that this has nothing to do with race, but I do not believe you, and no one else does. No police officer is going to be demanding to see the green card of white citizens, because they are not your typical illegal immigrant. In Arizona illegal immigrants are hispanic, therefore the only ones who will be exhibiting "suspicious behavior" will be hispanics. It will be about race no matter how they try to cover it up, and you can not deny it.

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

No, it's not. They have to take training on what is suspicious behaviour and it has to be reasonable. They aren't just throwing the officers out there.

Can you inform me of what suspicious behavior of illegal immigrants is? I'm very curious how you can tell if someone is here legally or illegally by their actions.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

I read what you posted already. But that doesn't answer the question what constitues suspicion. What is typical suspicious behavior of illegal immigrants? Do they do certain acts that legal immigrants do not do? How can one tell an illegal immigrant by looking at them?

You're not supposed to "just look at them". In the link above reasonable suspicion includes but is not limited to (bolding mine):

•Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:

◦A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.

◦A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.

◦A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

You can tell me until you are red in the face that this has nothing to do with race, but I do not believe you, and no one else does

70% of Arizonans do since they approve of the law, I would think.

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

No police officer is going to be demanding to see the green card of white citizens, because they are not your typical illegal immigrant.

There are already Federal Laws against racial profiling. Since the Arizona law is based upon the Federal Law then the officers are going to be bound by these same laws. In other words nothing has changed from the Federal to the Arizona Law. Bolding mine.

A. Routine or Spontaneous Activities in Domestic Law Enforcement
In making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops, Federal law enforcement officers may not use race or ethnicity to any degree, except that officers may rely on race and ethnicity in a specific suspect description. This prohibition applies even where the use of race or ethnicity might otherwise be lawful.

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

It will be about race no matter how they try to cover it up, and you can not deny it.

Cover it up? I don't know how you can look at SB 1070 and claim anyone is covering up anything. What I don't understand is how people are villifying Arizona when the Federal Government practices all the same policies?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

You can tell me until you are red in the face that this has nothing to do with race, but I do not believe you, and no one else does

This sort of generalization is both easy to disprove and unhelpful to thread tone.

Apparently crime stats have fallen in the last 10 years in Arizona, throwing into question one rationale behind the law.

Also, I think the entire key to this lies in two phrases: "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion".

The first phrase is important because according to everything I've read (including this politifact article), examples of people who are questioned about papers could include witnesses to other crimes, people who ask for directions, etc - not just people who were put onto police radar by committing other crimes, etc.

The second, "reasonable suspicion", may yet end up being defined by the courts. While someone's outward skin tone cannot be the sole factor, my reading of that section indicates that it can be used as a factor in conjunction with other factors, and that's troubling to me. So while it's technically correct to note that the law prohibits profiling based solely on skin tone, I think it's also correct to note that a reasonable interpretation of the law is that skin tone can be used as a factor - and it then becomes a crucial issue of "what other factors need to be present and where is the line", in terms of the impact of the law.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Chris

Apparently crime stats have fallen in the last 10 years in Arizona, throwing into question one rationale behind the law.

Crime stats have fallen due to other measures that Arizona has initiated. Apparently Arizonans think that those actions are not enough. That is their right as a state.

Originally Posted by Chris

Also, I think the entire key to this lies in two phrases: "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion".

Chris, you can't cherry pick the law. The "lawful contact" is a prerequisite i.e. the officer must be have a right to be where he is AND he must have reasonable suspicion which has aleady been outlined in various court rulings. In fact the Arizona Law is MORE restrictive to police than Federal law according to this author. I think he has a point (bolding mine).

Now, why do I say the Arizona law is more restrictive of police than is federal law? Well, the Supreme Court has held that one common rationale for a permissible Terry stop is to ascertain the identity of the person who is detained. That is, federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place.

The Arizona law, by contrast, does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person's immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific "reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien.

Originally Posted by Chris

While someone's outward skin tone cannot be the sole factor, my reading of that section indicates that it can be used as a factor in conjunction with other factors, and that's troubling to me.

I linked above that the word SOLE has been removed from the bill.

Originally Posted by Chris

So while it's technically correct to note that the law prohibits profiling based solely on skin tone, I think it's also correct to note that a reasonable interpretation of the law is that skin tone can be used as a factor - and it then becomes a crucial issue of "what other factors need to be present and where is the line", in terms of the impact of the law.

As the law is based on Federal Law and follows federal rules and previous court rulings I think this one may stand. I can't see the White House wanting their own laws looked at next.

[Chris]

I'm glad that they passed that retooling today (that's why I missed it, since those politifact articles I linked were from yesterday, and strangely CNN and MSNBC online haven't posted those yet), but I am not cherry-picking. I would love to see what legal experts make of the revised language, since I'm going by what a whole bunch of legal experts are saying about the two terms that I see as the crux of the issue.

Those legal experts are the ones concerned about what reasonable suspicion is. Those legal experts are the ones concerned about lawful contact being too broadly defined. I'll even note that the law does say that other investigations can't be obstructed just in order to figure out if someone is here legally or not, but it could still create a culture of fear among both legal and illegal immigrants that then makes them afraid to report crimes or speak to the police. (as an example, I could see the need for police chiefs to put out ads that their officers will not ask you about immigration status if you report a crime to them - the law was written with the intent that it not impede the reporting of crimes, but that doesn't mean that there won't be people afraid to report said crimes because of this new law - and it's a completely unintended consequence that may still need to be dealt with)

I'm aware of the protections that they tried to build in, and I'm glad that one glaring fault has been remedied. But, even aware of those - and fully aware of the arguments presented - I still think that there needs to be a very high level of training and monitoring to ensure that this law doesn't accidentally end up profiling, even with all the safeguards built in. All it takes is a few officers who aren't well-trained or who are overzealous to make it all fall apart. Those officers may be in violation of the law, as written, but the law itself (even as amended) still appears to set up the stage for infringements of civil liberties.

I think one fairly safe prediction is that, even if they end up being released with an apology, stories will come out very quickly (and with widespread national attention) after people who are lawfully in the United States are detained under the law. Supporters will likely note that in the end the law did its job since legally present residents would have been released; however, opponents will then argue back that they never should have been detained in the first place.

ETA: Having been through the border patrol checkpoints a few times myself out near El Paso, I'd love to know what the Border Patrol policies are regarding who they ask more questions of at those checkpoints. They always ask first "are you a US citizen". They've always waved us onwards - even with a fully packed car (we were moving) - right after the "yes", but I'd love to know how they figure out who to check who says "yes" and they think "no". Those who haven't spent time in the true border cities may be unaware that there are rules in most of the cities which make travel over the border easier - usually it's a ~30 mile radius in which travel is less restricted. El Paso and Juarez is probably the best example, where it's not unusual for people to live in Juarez and work in El Paso, or they go shopping in El Paso, etc.

ETA2: Reading the wiki linked regarding "reasonable suspicion", I'd note that it does appear to have been defined, but the accepted definition ("reasonable person" and "reasonable officer") leaves a lot of wiggle room, and it's unclear to me whether any court has defined "reasonable suspicion" in the case of "suspecting someone to be illegal", except in the border crossing realm. So, to me, that means that the success or failure of this law in both cutting down on the number of illegals in Arizona and in not infringing on the civil liberties of lawfully present residents is still predicated on those two phrases that I talked about above.

And, reading the Free Republic article, I'd note the following:

Originally Posted by article

There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."

I'd note that a court would need to clarify two things: first, what would give an officer reasonable suspicion to ask about the immigration status of someone (s)he meets through a noncustodial interaction; and second, is refusal to answer a question regarding the immigration status then reasonable suspicion to detain said person?

Also, regarding the paragraph of that article already quoted, between the first part of the argument ("in addition to the initial contact being lawful") and the second ("Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop"), he's narrowed down his argument in a way that I think is sweeping the big grey area I am concerned about under the rug. He may be operating under the assumption that no one who's in a noncustodial interaction would be subject to further questioning, but I don't know if that's a safe assumption, considering the language of the law. Or, he's just going from a general argument into a specific example, but I wish somewhere else in his essay he dealt more explicitly with the issue of lawful contacts initiated by the public, instead of by the officers, etc.

Originally Posted by article

As I indicated in my column, I agree with Byron: The people who are complaining about this law almost certainly either have not read it or are demagogues who would make the same absurd claims no matter what they law said.

Personally, I find this end note pretty insulting to those of us who are raising legitimate concerns, one of which has already been addressed(!). This author, while raising a lot of points, seems to be glossing over the grey areas in the law, that will need to be clarified in order for it to work. People are protected under US Civil rights laws, as he notes, but I'd rather not have the rights infringement in the first place than to have a rights infringement and then go through the bother of suing the officer, etc, etc. I'm not a demagogue, I've read the relevant safeguards, and I'm pointing out holes that rather smart people who have read it are concerned about. His article would have been much better off without the potshot at bill opponents at the end, and it would indeed hold a better chance at persuading people if he left it off.

My biggest concern with the law is that it has too much grey, even with the safeguards that have been noted here and elsewhere. A secondary concern of mine is that this could drive down crime reporting rates, though I think that that particular aspect could be dealt with, though potentially at a cost to cities and counties.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Chris

Those legal experts are the ones concerned about what reasonable suspicion is. Those legal experts are the ones concerned about lawful contact being too broadly defined. I'll even note that the law does say that other investigations can't be obstructed just in order to figure out if someone is here legally or not, but it could still create a culture of fear among both legal and illegal immigrants that then makes them afraid to report crimes or speak to the police. (as an example, I could see the need for police chiefs to put out ads that their officers will not ask you about immigration status if you report a crime to them - the law was written with the intent that it not impede the reporting of crimes, but that doesn't mean that there won't be people afraid to report said crimes because of this new law - and it's a completely unintended consequence that may still need to be dealt with)

I'm aware of the protections that they tried to build in, and I'm glad that one glaring fault has been remedied. But, even aware of those - and fully aware of the arguments presented - I still think that there needs to be a very high level of training and monitoring to ensure that this law doesn't accidentally end up profiling, even with all the safeguards built in. All it takes is a few officers who aren't well-trained or who are overzealous to make it all fall apart. Those officers may be in violation of the law, as written, but the law itself (even as amended) still appears to set up the stage for infringements of civil liberties.

But Chris, you can't create laws on what may happen in the future. The laws, as they are defined today, were created with the knowledge of past incidents, crimes, court ruling etc etc etc and those are the laws that impact the future. You simply can not, imho, say an officer "mightn't get trained", or that an "officer might neglect his duty" or that some "some people might fall through the cracks" are sufficient enough reasons to not enact laws. And in all due respect to all those legal analysts you are quoting isn't it likely that Arizona also employed it's own set of legal analysts while drafting this bill?

Originally Posted by Chris

ETA: Having been through the border patrol checkpoints a few times myself out near El Paso, I'd love to know what the Border Patrol policies are regarding who they ask more questions of at those checkpoints.

Since border patrols are governed by Federal regulations would it be not better to ask the Obama Admin? I have to reiterate that since Arizona law is based upon federal law. If the Fed can do it, why cannot the states, especially given the fact that the Government hasn't been doing it's job?

Originally Posted by Chris

ETA2: Reading the wiki linked regarding "reasonable suspicion", I'd note that it does appear to have been defined, but the accepted definition ("reasonable person" and "reasonable officer") leaves a lot of wiggle room, and it's unclear to me whether any court has defined "reasonable suspicion" in the case of "suspecting someone to be illegal", except in the border crossing realm. So, to me, that means that the success or failure of this law in both cutting down on the number of illegals in Arizona and in not infringing on the civil liberties of lawfully present residents is still predicated on those two phrases that I talked about above.

And, again I would say that the laws have been defined. Perhaps later such things can be overturned but you cannot simply block laws or bills that already have precedent (or sue the law makers) just because it could be overturned later. Otherwise we'd be applying it to every law in the land. Imagine the ramifications of that line of thinking on issues such as abortion. Roe v. Wade could be overturned someday (because of some wiggleroom in what defines "life") so let's just ban abortion clinics now....

Originally Posted by Chris

Personally, I find this end note pretty insulting to those of us who are raising legitimate concerns, one of which has already been addressed(!). This author, while raising a lot of points, seems to be glossing over the grey areas in the law, that will need to be clarified in order for it to work.

Do I get brownie points for not quoting that line? Seriously it is from a far right wing author however it is undeniable that he HAS made points. I wasn't insulting you just by linking the author, I linked it to make a point. As far as gray areas in the law---they are gray areas in EVERY law. That does not mean that laws should not be enacted. The Federal Immigration Laws have gray areas and Arizona chose to follow the Federal ones so as to avoid as many obstacles as possible. If you critisize the Arizona Law you critisize the Federal Law. Perhaps a sweeping national immigration reform should be the thing being scrutinized. NOT Arizona.

[Tenshi]

Can't say I'd be against such a law, under the circumstance that it's done correctly and what flimseycauldron posted convinces me. When there are justified suspicions then the person should be asked and then it should be decided what happens to them. Removing them from the country, when they really have no permission to stay, I'd agree with.

[MHPFAN]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

What have you read? So you understand that SB 1070 is based upon Federal Law, right?

Yes, I understand exactly what I've read. Regardless, I think it's a terrible law and no matter how many "valid" points are stated, it doesn't take away from my opinion that it opens a door to "lawful" racial profiling.

[merry18]

This law makes racial profiling legal, plain and simple. Supporters can sugarcoat it all they want, but the cops won't be using "reasonable suspicion" to ask for papers of Whites in Arizona. This is their way of legally discriminating against Hispanics. I'm all for illegal immigration reform, but this law is not the way to go about it.
And honestly, the very first thought that went through my head when I heard about this law was the Gestapo asking to see papers of suspected Jews.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by merry18

This law makes racial profiling legal, plain and simple. Supporters can sugarcoat it all they want, but the cops won't be using "reasonable suspicion" to ask for papers of Whites in Arizona. This is their way of legally discriminating against Hispanics. I'm all for illegal immigration reform, but this law is not the way to go about it.
And honestly, the very first thought that went through my head when I heard about this law was the Gestapo asking to see papers of suspected Jews.

I've just been reading the law and various Federal sections related to the powers of law enforcement officers to control illegal immigration, and I don't agree. If you feel that the law will not be enforced equitably, then that's something altogether different.

[merry18]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

I've just been reading the law and various Federal sections related to the powers of law enforcement officers to control illegal immigration, and I don't agree. If you feel that the law will not be enforced equitably, then that's something altogether different.

Yes, that was my point. I try to be optimistic, but this is a law that just screams inequitable. I don't see how it couldn't be. When people think of illegals, they don't picture Whites - they picture Hispanics. And this is Arizona, so that would only be heightened. Sad, but true.

This country has a less than spectacular reputation for racial profiling in law enforcement, and this law is a huge step backward, in my opinion.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by merry18

Yes, that was my point. I try to be optimistic, but this is a law that just screams inequitable. I don't see how it couldn't be. When people think of illegals, they don't picture Whites - they picture Hispanics. And this is Arizona, so that would only be heightened. Sad, but true.

This country has a less than spectacular reputation for racial profiling in law enforcement, and this law is a huge step backward, in my opinion.

But there you said "this is a law that..." when what you're really skeptical about is how it will be enforced. Again, I think it would be constructive to distinguish the law from its enforcement. A lot of factors can contribute to inadequate enforcement: budget problems, corruption, politics, etc..

[merry18]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

But there you said "this is a law that..." when what you're really skeptical about is how it will be enforced. Again, I think it would be constructive to distinguish the law from its enforcement. A lot of factors can contribute to inadequate enforcement: budget problems, corruption, politics, etc..

The law itself, which in my opinion legalizes racial profiling, will cause enforcement to be inequitable. That's what I'm trying to say. The law, which is meant to crack down on illegal immigration, translates to cracking down on Hispanics because that's who most suspect may be illegal.