Immigrants vs. Illegal Aliens

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I still say it is too broad. They can hassle anyone they have a reason to stop, which can include any other civil infractions. It is like the seat belt law in some states. The cop sees you are not wearing a seat belt and finds some other reason to stop you. What do you think they will be looking for?

Again, the Arizona law doesn't give local authorities any liberties the federal authorities didn't already have, and doesn't encroach on the civil liberties of Hispanics unless the federal law also does so. In Alabama, if the officer sees you are not wearing a seat belt, they can stop you and issue a citation... it's $45 in most municipal courts. IF they happen to also notice your car smells like a bong, and your eyes are glazed over, they have "probable cause" to search your vehicle for illegal drugs. How is that any different than what the Arizona law allows?

 

[Timshel]

Again, the Arizona law doesn't give local authorities any liberties the federal authorities didn't already have, and doesn't encroach on the civil liberties of Hispanics unless the federal law also does so.

I have shown that it does give Arizona more powers to conduct warrantless arrest than is enjoyed by federal agnets. I have cited the code and provided court opinions expressing this. Your simple statement is not a sufficient response, Ditzy.

In Alabama, if the officer sees you are not wearing a seat belt, they can stop you and issue a citation... it's $45 in most municipal courts. IF they happen to also notice your car smells like a bong, and your eyes are glazed over, they have "probable cause" to search your vehicle for illegal drugs. How is that any different than what the Arizona law allows?

They have cause to search not arrest for a criminal not a civil violation of the law. How is it any different, Ditzy?

 

[Timshel]

And, Ditzy, I am not sure you understood the seat belt reference. Alabama, as you describe, is a primary enforcement state. In other states they are not supposed to pull you over for not wearing your seat belt but can ticket you if they have some other reason to pull you over. So they find one. Some of the cops are going to see someone that looks like an illegal alien and find some reason to pull them over.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have shown that it does give Arizona more powers to conduct warrantless arrest than is enjoyed by federal agnets. I have cited the code and provided court opinions expressing this. Your simple statement is not a sufficient response, Ditzy.

You've not "shown" anything but your opinion. I have read the Arizona law, and I have read the federal law regarding apprehension of illegal aliens, and they are basically the same law. Correct me if I am wrong, but the overwhelming majority of arrests are warrant-less.... (if you are meaning, a court has not issued a warrant for arrest.) Very rarely is that ever the case in a typical police apprehension, and if it were required, we may as well allow criminals and crooks to do as they please. What you are trying to do is draw a parallel with "warrantless wiretaps" because you realize idiot morons will glom onto your emotive bleats of injustice with that.

They have cause to search not arrest for a criminal not a civil violation of the law. How is it any different, Ditzy?

I don't see where it's any different. Having a joint in your car is just as illegal as crossing the border without going through the proper procedure for entering the country. If something gives the cops "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" to think you are guilty of violating the law, they should be able to detain you, and search your vehicle. If they find you are an illegal alien or you illegally have dope in your car, they should be able to arrest you and charge you with a crime.

 

[tinfoil]

Ex posto facto. If you are illegally present, you must have entered illegally or done something to become illegal. Those who are illegally present are a potential security risk, and for that reason alone, should be taken very seriously. You want to bog down on a superfluous detail... no one is talking about someone who's visa has expired, or some moron tourist who accidentally strayed across the border into the US... we are talking about Mexicans who are coming across our southern borders at an alarming rate, draining the border cities dry because these people contribute nothing to the system. This is a huge problem, and it has to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and to hem-haw around with your idiot ass, talking about the 'technicalities' of people who are 'illegally present' is just plain stupid.

They also drive up the insurance costs in the fields in which they displace legal workers. Specifically, liability insurance costs.

 

[Timshel]

You've not "shown" anything but your opinion. I have read the Arizona law, and I have read the federal law regarding apprehension of illegal aliens, and they are basically the same law.

Basically? It does not really take a lot of difference to overstep. The law gives the Arizona cops more power than federal agents to conduct warrantless arrests.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the overwhelming majority of arrests are warrant-less.... (if you are meaning, a court has not issued a warrant for arrest.) Very rarely is that ever the case in a typical police apprehension, and if it were required, we may as well allow criminals and crooks to do as they please. What you are trying to do is draw a parallel with "warrantless wiretaps" because you realize idiot morons will glom onto your emotive bleats of injustice with that.

Ditzy, I am not arguing that the cops cannot arrest for probable cause of a crime. This is a civil violation. How often do cops arrest someone based on probable cause that they illegally crossed the street? They would have to witness it and then are only going to issue a citation.

I don't see where it's any different. Having a joint in your car is just as illegal as crossing the border without going through the proper procedure for entering the country.

THE AZ LAW IS NOT LIMITED TO PROBABLE CAUSE OF ILLEGAL ENTRY. That's a crime. They are arresting based on probable cause of a civil violation.

If something gives the cops "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" to think you are guilty of violating the law, they should be able to detain you, and search your vehicle. If they find you are an illegal alien or you illegally have dope in your car, they should be able to arrest you and charge you with a crime.

Jesus Christ so many errors in so few words. Being an illegal alien is not necessarily a crime. The violation they have probable cause of based on a lack of documentation is not a crime. Cops are very limited in who they may arrest for a civil offense and are generally allowed to do so only if the cop has reason to believe the person will escape, otherwise a warrant is required. Usually, the cops may only stop, cite and release you for a civil violation. They can not search you based on a civil violation alone.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They are arresting based on probable cause of a civil violation.

You keep pretending it is a "civil violation" to have crossed the border illegally. We are a sovereign country. The person in question is not a U.S. citizen, and is subject to immediate deportation from the United States of America. If they have some reasonable exceptional excuse for not being legal, this is what the judges are for, and it can be dealt with on an individual basis, but I would think, in most cases, if you are not in this country legally, you have to go. Sorry! If your only argument is, this doesn't amount to a serious "crime"... we can take care of that. It is a breach of our sovereignty and national security to cross our border illegally, and we can make it a felony offense. We could even make it a capital offense, if that is what it takes to enforce border security!

 

[Timshel]

You keep pretending it is a "civil violation" to have crossed the border illegally.

No, I do not. I keep repeating (has to be close to a 100 times now) that THAT is a crime. It is a crime that not all illegal aliens are guilty of and lack of documentation is not probable cause of it, the courts have expressed this. Not all illegal aliens entered illegally. Some entered legally and failed to stay in compliance with the law (could be a visa expiration, change in student status, taking prohibited work, etc.). They are not guilty of a crime but a civil violation of the law.

We are a sovereign country. The person in question is not a U.S. citizen, and is subject to immediate deportation from the United States of America. If they have some reasonable exceptional excuse for not being legal, this is what the judges are for, and it can be dealt with on an individual basis, but I would think, in most cases, if you are not in this country legally, you have to go. Sorry! If your only argument is, this doesn't amount to a serious "crime"... we can take care of that. It is a breach of our sovereignty and national security to cross our border illegally, and we can make it a felony offense. We could even make it a capital offense, if that is what it takes to enforce border security!

One can be deported for illegal presence. I have not argued otherwise. They can not be arrested for illegal presence without a warrant unless they are likely to escape. They cannot be jailed or imprisoned for illegal presence alone. The illegally present are not criminals.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

No, I do not. I keep repeating (has to be close to a 100 times now) that THAT is a crime. It is a crime that not all illegal aliens are guilty of and lack of documentation is not probable cause of it, the courts have expressed this. Not all illegal aliens entered illegally. Some entered illegally and failed to stay in compliance with the law (could be a visa expiration, change in student status, taking prohibited work, etc.). They are not guilty of a crime but a civil violation of the law.



One can be deported for illegal presence. I have not argued otherwise. They can not be arrested for illegal presence without a warrant unless they are likely to escape. They cannot be jailed or imprisoned for illegal presence alone. The illegally present are not criminals.

So it's an infraction for which they should be deported. Exactly. We don't have to call it a crime, but it does make them subject to deportation and it is morally wrong for the government to allow them to steal jobs from americans by shirking their duty to deport.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I understand, lawful contact. We have been over it.

The Arizona House majority research analyst says,

"t wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer."
...

"[L]awful contact is definitely different than reasonable suspicion in terms of the initiation of the contact. So lawful contact is essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties. So it wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer where through the course of that contact they are able to build reasonable suspicion and therefore inquire."

Cops are always on duty. they're required to enforce the law. Thanks for valiantly trying to somehow spin contact into something nefarious.

 

[Timshel]

Cops are always on duty. they're required to enforce the law. Thanks for valiantly trying to somehow spin contact into something nefarious.

What's nefarious? I merely gave you quotes from Arizona's majority (Republican) research analyst. He was spinning lawful contact into something nefarious?

Lawful contact is exactly what he said it was. It includes witnesses, victims and anyone the cop comes into contact with during his normal lawful duties. Basically, it means they can't go door to door asking for papers.

This has been amended. Arizona Republican lawmakers are not as dumb as you people and so they changed this to, "lawful stop, detention or arrest." That's better, still too broad.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

What's nefarious? I merely gave you quotes from Arizona's majority (Republican) research analyst. He was spinning lawful contact into something nefarious?

Lawful contact is exactly what he said it was. It includes witnesses, victims and anyone the cop comes into contact with during his normal lawful duties. Basically, it means they can't go door to door asking for papers.

This has been amended. Arizona Republican lawmakers are not as dumb as you people and so they changed this to, "lawful stop, detention or arrest." That's better, still too broad.

No. people have to agree to speak with him. People are not obligated to talk to cops.

 

[Timshel]

No. people have to agree to speak with him. People are not obligated to talk to cops.

Yeah, a witness, a victim of a crime or anyone that interacts with the police. You think that is even close to sufficient protection? Do you think it would be cool to have a brown skinned rape victim hassled for her papers?

The lawful contact part is no longer relevant. There isn't much point in discussing it further because the Arizona Republicans acknowledged their mistake and have already amended the law. Good for them.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Yeah, a witness, a victim of a crime or anyone that interacts with the police. You think that is even close to sufficient protection? Do you think it would be cool to have a brown skinned rape victim hassled for her papers?

The lawful contact part is no longer relevant. There isn't much point in discussing it further because the Arizona Republicans acknowledged their mistake and have already amended the law. Good for them.

Not cool per se, but just part of living in a society with laws. she shouldn't have come here. It was illegal to do so. The evidence of her past crime is here presence here.

There is no legal justification for turning a blind eye to illegal invasion as a policy.

You just want to degrade the nations wages because you're an anti-human fascist.

 

[Timshel]

Not cool per se, but just part of living in a society with laws. she shouldn't have come here. It was illegal to do so. The evidence of her past crime is here presence here.

God, you are either dumb or evil. Do you think every person that may be asked by the cops for proof of legal presence are automatically guilty? Sorry, that is a stupid assumption, one that our legal traditions protect us against.

I don't want a citizen or legal immigrant who is a victim of a crime hassled over their legal presence. The idea is fucking obscene to anyone short of a Nazi. Even the Arizona Republicans realized this, but you... you're a nAHZi.

There is no legal justification for turning a blind eye to illegal invasion as a policy.

You just want to degrade the nations wages because you're an anti-human fascist.

Idiot

 

[Sammy Jankis]

God, you are either dumb or evil. Do you think every person that may be asked by the cops for proof of legal presence are automatically guilty? Sorry, that is a stupid assumption, one that our legal traditions protect us against.

wrong on both accounts. I'm brilliant and moral. Cops are always on duty.

I don't want a citizen or legal immigrant who is a victim of a crime hassled over their legal presence. The idea is fucking obscene to anyone short of a Nazi. Even the Arizona Republicans realized this, but you... you're a nAHZi.



Idiot

Get over your misplaced open borders anti-american righteousness.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

So according to law, they should be deported, but stringy doesn't want even a situation where anyone can be questioned. It's obvious he hates the american worker.

 

[Timshel]

Get over your misplaced open borders anti-american righteousness.

Apparently, the Az Repubs shared my concerns. You are beyond the fringes of reality much less any real world political discourse. You don't really matter. The issue has been addressed. I am not completely satisfied, but at least they won't be hassling victims.

Who said they can't question them?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Apparently, the Az Repubs shared my concerns. You are beyond the fringes of reality much less any real world political discourse. You don't really matter. The issue has been addressed. I am not completely satisfied, but at least they won't be hassling victims.

Who said they can't question them?

Republicans are fascists so their opinions are worthless, as a general rule.

You say they can't be questioned about the felonious crime of illegally being here.

 

[Timshel]

Republicans are fascists so their opinions are worthless, as a general rule.

They are fascist. You, a person who believes people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent and that the cops should cast as wide a net as possible, have no right to call them that. I think Hitler may have found you too extreme.

Like I said, beyond the fringes of reality much less reasonable political discourse. You are crazy, but harmless since nobody listens to you.

You say they can't be questioned about the felonious crime of illegally being here.

Felonious crime? You have to be pulling my leg.