Dedicated to Arizona Lawmakers

mikepegg44 wrote:

I would much rather have a little higher prices for food than wonder every day who is sneaking in today.

How much higher would you be willing to pay?

Thanks for the thoughtful response to my other post. I'll have to reply later, when I have more time.

Yet the fact that tons of Jobs are being shipped outside of our country, to take advantage of cheap labor, doesn't affect anyone....


tonifig8, i'm not sure i understand this statement. what do you mean by "doesn't affect anyone?"

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

This says to me that law enforcement is not only allowed, but required, to require anyone they suspect may be here illegally to prove that they are NOT illegal immigrants. This means:



1. Cops MUST assess for each person they encounter whether there is any reason to suspect that the person may be here illegally. How do you propose they make this initial assessment if not by appearance?

Cops already do this on a daily basis for a lot of things. That is their Job. To assess situations and find out if people are committing crimes. It is a fairly simple concept to understand. They are well trained and do a very good job in assessing situations. Let me give you a situation that actually occurred in the state of MN. A mini van traveling at 81 mph at 2:30 in the morning was pulled over by police. When the officer approached the vehicle he found 15 people inside. The officer asked some questions and found out that the people were in fact here illegally. Were these people racially profiled? was this purely racist behavior on the part of the officer? Absolutely not. There was reasonable suspicion to inquire further. But because the feds were the only ones who were could arrest people for federal crimes the officer called it in and was told that they weren't coming. So the officer had to cite the driver for speeding and let them go. Does that seem right to you? they wouldn't knowingly let a drug dealer go, they wouldn't knowingly let a prostitute go...so why is this law so breakable?
All this law does is give the state and local police the ability to arrest people in violation of federal law.

Yes, cops, on a regular basis, assess situations and find out whether crimes are being committed. The difference is that this law requires them to assess every situation for THIS PARTICULAR crime. And it REQUIRES action based on SUSPICION, not based on probable cause. If there were similar laws that said every time you saw someone you thought might be a stoner, for instance, you were required to have them prove they weren't in violation of any law, then people probably wouldn't have such a problem with this law. But there aren't other such laws, and this country would never stand for it if someone tried to enact one.

As for your example, I have no idea if those people were racially profiled or not. Part of the problem with racial profiling is that, though it does happen, it's hard to prove. Your example highlights the difference between this law and other laws though. That cop had to have probably cause to pull them over. Legally, he couldn't have pulled them over if they weren't already breaking another law. (Though we all know he could have just lied and said they were breaking another law if he wanted to.) In this AZ law, however, cops don't need any reason to pull someone over other than that they "suspect" that they are here illegally. The requirement of probably cause is gone. Can you imagine if cops could just pull you over for no real reason, when you're not breaking any laws, just because they suspect that you might be breaking a law but don't have probably cause? Don't you see the problem here? This is a total infringement upon our freedom. And if it were happening to us...... well, it wouldn't happen to us. (Actually, it has happened to me and I can tell you it's really horrible, but that's a whole other story.)

As to whether or not what happened in your example seems right to me, I can't really say, especially without all the facts. But I don't think this law was any more breakable than any others. Cops can and do let drug dealers, prostitutes, speeders, etc. go all the time. KDH12 posted a very insightful article about it the other day: http://insideandout.chicagopublicradio.org/content/why-there-divide-juvenile-justice So your argument here seems to be that immigration law is the only one where exceptions are made in favor of leniency, but I would argue that leniency is an option for many laws, but this AZ law singles out immigration for stricter punishment/enforcement.

And, as I pointed out in my original post, it's not true that this law ONLY gives states the ability to arrest people in violation of federal law. It ALSO creates new crimes and punishments and, most importantly, changes the way law enforcement is allowed and required to assess whether or not someone is in violation of federal law.

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

2. If they do have any suspicion (or if an argument could be made that they should have had suspicion) that a person is here illegally, they MUST require that person to prove otherwise. This DISALLOWS them from using their discretion as public servants.

No it doesn't, they already used their discretion to ask for the id in the first place. They aren't just going to walk down the street and ask people for ID.

For one thing, it at least disallows them from using their discretion at this point in the process (the asking for ID part). For another, one could argue that room for discretion in the previous point in the process (the assessing whether you should be suspicious part) is limited since there will certainly be instances where you can't, as a reasonable and intelligent cop, deny that you were suspicious, as in my examples below.

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

For instance, if they are called to investigate a domestic violence situation or a rape and they think the woman who was assaulted may be undocumented, they are REQUIRED to make her prove that she is legal. If she is not carrying her papers, they are REQUIRED to arrest her. The same goes for people who report crimes, call ambulances, etc. Can you see the negative effects this may have?

So if the cops show up and a prostitute was turning a trick and was claiming a man stole from her, should the cops let her go? It is no different, it is a god damn crime.

I think discretion is in order. For one thing, we're not just talking about people who are committing the crime of being here illegally. We're also talking about anyone under suspicion of being here illegally - even if she is perfectly legal - who isn't carrying proof of innocence. Are you actually saying a cop should NECESSARILY arrest (or at least harass) a woman who had just been beat up and raped, who they were called to HELP?? Or a person who had called the cops on behalf of someone else? Can you really not see the horribly negative effects this may have? This will allow all women, children, etc. without papers to be assaulted, raped, robbed, etc. at will because they will bee too afraid of being deported if they call for help. At least now they have some hope that the cop will use his discretion. And how would you feel if you were hit by a car or having a heart attack or something and the person witnessing it didn't call for help because he was too afraid of deportation? I know at least some states have laws that actually protect criminals in violation of drug crimes in these circumstances. Why should these criminals be protected but undocumented immigrants shouldn't have even the hope of discretion on the part of the cop?

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

3. The burden of proof that one is not committing a crime (the crime of being here illegally) is now on the citizens/residents/immigrants. Anyone who is "suspect" is presumed guilty until proven innocent and is subject to mandatory arrest. Does this not fly in the face of the democracy of which we Americans are so proud?

No it doesn't. A person who is being questioned by police generally has to prove that they are innocent. It isn't a court of law, if you were being questioned about a murder you would have to prove where you were when it took place or you might have trouble.

The difference is that in all other cases the cops must have probably cause. In this law, for this crime, they don't.

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

I was sure to note the part you keep quoting about how they're not supposed to solely consider race. But here's the thing:

1. This only means that they can find a person suspect based on their race if they can identify ANY other pre-judged indicator of illegality. For instance, if someone is Hispanic and wearing certain clothes. If someone is brown and near the border. If someone is Mexican and a victim of domestic violence (if their prejudice tells them that victims of domestic violence are more likely to be here illegally). Does this not, then, allow profiling based on individual prejudices?

None of this is proper cause. and the domestic violence thing is insulting to police officers.

How do you know it's not "proper cause"? Proper cause isn't defined here. As a matter of fact, this part of the law is where they list the things that are excluded from being proper cause and only "race, color, or national origin" are excluded. Otherwise, it clearly states that you only need "suspicion" and it provides no guidance or limitations about what should or shouldn't raise your suspicion.

And the domestic violence thing is not insulting to police officers. I didn't suggest that all, most, or even many police officers would have this prejudice. I'm merely acknowledging that some might. You can't really claim that absolutely no law enforcement official in the state of Arizona would have this prejudice. And I'd be willing to bet that at least a few do.

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

2. Just because they're not supposed to solely consider race doesn't by any understanding of reality mean they won't. And what's stopping them? The person being questioned has not only the burden of proof of legality, but also the burden to prove that the cop acted solely based on race. The cop has the benefit of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. And we all know that most regular citizens and legal immigrants don't have the resources to fight this battle against the cops. Plus, if they did fight, they would likely be subject to even more harassment. So how exactly does this one line in this law really protect anyone?

All laws are like that. No law is prohibits racial profiling from actually existing, it is up to the officers. this doesn't make it any easier, they still have to show that in practice it isn't happening.

But not all laws are like that because other laws don't provide such leeway to allow racial profiling.

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

This is very clear that this law is not just a repetition of the federal law, as you keep saying, but in fact creates crimes and penalties that are "in addition to" any violation of or penalty prescribed by the federal law. Furthermore, it makes you a felon if you are busted twice.

So if you commit the same crime TWICE you become a felon? Good. Jim Carey said it best in Liar Liar...Quit breaking the law, asshole.

You didn't address my first and main point.

Do you believe, then, that it should be a felony to commit any crime twice?

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

This section is about smuggling people into the country. This means a cop can pull anyone over to check them for smuggling if they can think of even the slightest bullshit reason to SUSPECT they may be breaking a traffic law. So this means they just have to say you drifted out of your lane or your muffler was too loud and they are legally allowed to pull you over FOR THE PURPOSE OF enforcing this immigration law. And this section doesn't say anything about not harassing people based on race.

again, all cops can do this now, CLICK-IT or TICKET ring a bell. Many states allow cops to pull people over for not wearing seat belts. once you are pulled over, you are and always have been subject to checking for other crimes. that is why so many people are caught for outstanding warrants when they are pulled over for speeding.

If this were just a maintenance of the status quo, why did they feel the need to add this clause in there specifically? And can all cops legally do this now FOR THE PURPOSE OF enforcing any other law? Yes, Click It or Ticket rings a bell, but I don't get your point. This law only requires, again, "suspicion" to believe the person is in violation of another law. Regardless, this section, like the rest of the law, just makes whatever harassment may already exist now even more acceptable.

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

So let's see how this might play out: Let's say a bunch of Pearl Jam fans caught a ride with me to a show and someone left a joint in my car. Then let's say I give one of you a ride home from the show, but you have your cousin with you who's not documented. (What am I gonna do, leave your cousin at the venue to fend for herself?) This law means, if I get stopped (maybe for having a couple of brown people in the car with me or for rolling through a stop sign), I am guilty of a crime, I will have to pay at least $1000, and my car will necessarily be impounded, leaving me without the transportation I need to get to work to feed my family (if I had a family). I know this is a very specific scenario and you might say it's unlikely to happen, but there are many more scenarios just this absurd that will play out because of this law. They even recognized how this might affect people in ridiculous ways by noting exceptions for CPS workers and ambulance drivers. If they didn't think these people might be charged under this law, they wouldn't have made such a point to exclude them. Regardless, do you REALLY think someone should be charged with a crime, made to pay $1000, and have their car impounded just for giving someone a ride??

First read the part in bold above

and Yes, you are giving a ride to an illegal immigrant, maybe this person shouldn't let people in their car without knowing who they are and what they have on them. Seems like a good plan to me.
But in practice what will happen is, the cops will ask a bunch of questions and most likely, because you had no idea that this was going on they will let you go with a warning and the illegal immigrant will be arrested. But keep in mind that if an illegal immigrant is in the car with a bunch of people from the states it is far less likely that the cops will have a suspicion that some isn't from the united states. Jesus christ, it isn't always a worst case scenario.

The part about recklessly disregarding that the person riding with you is here illegally? What the hell does that even mean? It could mean anything, really. Sure, you can argue your case that your circumstance doesn't constitute reckless disregard, but your car will be impounded and you'll be charged a fine in the meantime. My aunt's father came here illegally about 50 years ago. He's a wonderful man and great asset to our family. But I have no idea whether or not he ever got papers. And I'm not about to ask him to pull them out before letting him go with me to my grandmother's funeral (which was the last reason we were together). You could say I have reason to believe he's probably illegal, since I know he was at some point and don't know otherwise. So would that count as reckless disregard of his immigration status? Probably.

Give me a break about not letting anyone in your car if you haven't confirmed that they don't have a joint on them! That would basically mean I could never give fans like you a ride to a show.

I know it's not always the worst case scenario and I'm not suggesting it is. But the issue lies in what the law allows and requires, because it leaves the door open for all kinds of scenarios. When it comes to crafting law, it doesn't matter if you think it probably won't be enforced. Plus, the whole purpose of this law is to make sure these things are enforced. Do you think if one of these bad scenarios happens (and surely at least one will happen somewhere) we should just say, well we figured we'd pass this law knowing you might get fucked because we figured it probably wouldn't happen that often. Sorry you're the one who got fucked, but you have no real recourse because the cop was following the law.

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

I think this provision is too open to interpretation. Let's not forget that being here illegally twice is a felony under this law. So if a cop sees someone they think has already been busted for being here illegally, can they arrest him without a warrant under suspicion of committing a felony?

This is what they do now! They can arrest you without a warrant if they have reason to believe you have committed a felony. It is called probable cause, and if you want to get rid of that, well then there are going to be a lot more criminals on the streets.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I still think there's too much wiggle room here. And since the rest of the law seems designed to allow certain populations to have their rights violated, I don't trust that this part won't be used in the same way.

guess you had more time

unsung wrote:

That isn't my problem, let the restaurants close down. Maybe they will have to actually start hiring Americans that are looking for work.

Personally I believe the owners of these places should be jailed for employing illegal aliens.

you still did not answer my question about what your point was with the IL comment.

so then we should also crack down on all the people that are legal resident gringos that work under the table....

for the example the waiters at the restaurants that no longer have cooks

I am going to start a new movement..... all 21 year old white waitstaff in the USA need to be jailed for tax evasion

KDH12 wrote:

guess you had more time

What can I say? I don't own a TV so I have to find some other way to procrastinate doing my schoolwork.

really that is not relevant and makes no sense

not sure why you have to be a dick....

but hey if and when I win the Lotto I just might move to Mexico

a guy I work with, a white USA citizen, owns a house in Mexico and he and his wife are prepping it for when they retire

another guy I worked with in a restaurant when I waited table during graduate school, a Mexican here illegally, worked 2 jobs about 18 hours a day was also prepping a house in Mexico and once it was done he was moving back.... he told me that for about 20-30K he could build from the ground up a very nice house

doesn't sound bad to me

mikepegg44 wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Here is a question, if this law is repealed. What should be done with the illegal alien problem?

personally I think that migrant workers should be allowed back into the country. they get a work visa for summers or whenever else needed, they do a job as hired legally by a company, get paid a decent wage and then go back. And if people want to stay here full time then apply for it and work as a migrant worker until they can come through the right channels. If it is truly just about living a better life, or getting paid more money to live I see this as a reasonable solution. It keeps companies honest and makes them responsible for the people they employ. the workers are then subject to the employee protection laws of the United states and cannot relaly be taken advantage of in the same way. That is just my opinion though.

and a damn good one at that...