Then wipe your lips and brush your teeth next time.
That's more koolaid not coffee.
No, it's from you peeing on your leg. Sorry, I scared you. I was just joking.
Immigrants vs. Illegal Aliens
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
That's more koolaid not coffee.
No, it's from you peeing on your leg. Sorry, I scared you. I was just joking.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And the Arizona law complies with this completely. In fact, it states quite explicitly, a law enforcement officer can not detain on the basis of suspicion of civil deportability alone. However, suspicion of a criminal violation of immigration laws, is another matter. The officer is not charged with making a determination whether someone is guilty or innocent, merely with enforcement of the law. What you are trying to argue, would prohibit them from EVER enforcing the law.
Scenario: There has been a stabbing in your apartment building. Witnesses say the perpetrator was Caucasian, and wearing a blue shirt. The police begin searching the neighborhood, and they see a white man just down the street, with a blue shirt and a bloody knife. Are the officers within their rights to detain and question this person? Do they have to establish he is guilty first? Do they need a warrant? Does their questioning and detaining him, violate his civil rights or proclaim he is guilty of a crime? Is it entirely possible, there are a number of logical and legitimate reasons he could have been holding a bloody knife? The law enforcement officer only has one fundamental job, to use "reasonable suspicion" and have "probable cause" ...and to enforce the law. Judges, juries, and courts, can determine if someone is "illegally present" without being in violation of a criminal law. I would think "illegally present" might suggest the person had done something "illegal" otherwise, they wouldn't call it "illegally present" ....would they?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
NAH!!
They should begin questioning those with brown skin and ckecking for legal status.
Fuck talking to the stabbing suspect; because according to 3 or 4 posters,on this site, that's all that the Police do.
Wrong. Section 2E again...
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
...
Comparing a stabbing to a civil violation of the law is just retarded. It's comparing a jaywalker to a murderer. They are different levels of violations and are treated differently for a reason.
You know stringbean, I had to ask you if you knew what dicta was. You said you do, but I don't believe you. Now, I would like to know if you know what the words "PROBABLE CAUSE" mean in the section that you cite in your post. Hey, and by the way, you have never pointed out to me where there is a distinction between civil violation and misdemeanor. Apparently cannot find any source for such a distinction, huh? Thats reasonable, there is no such distinction.
Yes, dicta is not a holding. It does not have the force of law. But the courts opinion on these legal principles is repeated in the USC. It is likely to be referenced in opposition to this law.
I have already explained the distinctions. A misdemeanor is punishable by jail time. A civil violation is not. Jaywalking is a civil violation, petty theft would be a misdemeanor.
http://www.hillsclerk.com/publicweb/County_Criminal_FAQ.aspx
What is a misdemeanor?
Misdemeanors are offenses of the law that is less serious than felony offenses. They are punishable by a fine, probation, and/or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year as opposed to a state prison sentence on a felony charge. The misdemeanor offenses include petit theft, worthless checks, prostitution-related charges, possession of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia, resisting arrest without violence, battery (domestic violence), and assault. In addition to criminal misdemeanor cases, the county criminal court maintains and files civil infractions. The ordinance violation cases are punishable by a fine or civil penalty.
What are Civil infractions?
There are violations of county ordinances known as civil infractions that are neither criminal related charges or traffic related charges. Types of civil infractions are: littering, boating and fishing. Please read your citation carefully to verify if you have a mandatory court appearance or if the citation is a payable citation. Boating/marine patrol cases A citation given on a violation of a boating/marine patrol citation may be a payable fine. Please read your citation carefully to verify if you have to appear in court or can pay the citation fine. Game/fresh water fish cases Some of the game/fresh water fish citations are a payable fine. Please read your citation carefully to verify if you can pay the fine or need to appear in court.
What is a misdemeanor?
Misdemeanors are offenses of the law that is less serious than felony offenses. They are punishable by a fine, probation, and/or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year as opposed to a state prison sentence on a felony charge. The misdemeanor offenses include petit theft, worthless checks, prostitution-related charges, possession of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia, resisting arrest without violence, battery (domestic violence), and assault. In addition to criminal misdemeanor cases, the county criminal court maintains and files civil infractions. The ordinance violation cases are punishable by a fine or civil penalty.
What are Civil infractions?
There are violations of county ordinances known as civil infractions that are neither criminal related charges or traffic related charges. Types of civil infractions are: littering, boating and fishing. Please read your citation carefully to verify if you have a mandatory court appearance or if the citation is a payable citation. Boating/marine patrol cases A citation given on a violation of a boating/marine patrol citation may be a payable fine. Please read your citation carefully to verify if you have to appear in court or can pay the citation fine. Game/fresh water fish cases Some of the game/fresh water fish citations are a payable fine. Please read your citation carefully to verify if you can pay the fine or need to appear in court.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:
In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.
In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.
In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."
In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 Fed. Appx. 827, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."
in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.
In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/Walt...lice_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html
Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:
In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.
In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.
In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."
In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 Fed. Appx. 827, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."
in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.
In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/Walt...lice_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html
You seem to be able to give ACLU support for everything else, can you give any support for your fallacious statement that a misdemeanor is punishable by jail time? And that a civil violation (whatever that is, you might give some support as to just what a civil violation is) is not? Give some support to your statement that Jaywalking is a civil violation. What is petty theft? You seem to be a real oracle, you should be able to respond. Lets see.
Can you give some statutory support that a misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail, and that a misdemeanor cannot be punishable by a simple fine? Give some support, either statutory or legal citation, you seem to be good at citing cases involving dicta. Give me some statutory language (and preferably from the State of Arizona) that defines civil violations and further that such civil violations are not subject to jail time and only punishagle by fines. Come on, if you got it disclose it. Your unsupported opinions mean nothing. Give me some statutory support or legal citations for such support.
This is either a straw man or you are confused. A misdemeanor may be punished with a fine. That does not make it a civil violation. It is subject to jail time and is therefore a crime. It is the upper limit of punishment that is important.
I gave you references, post #128. The definition of civil violation is in my signature. What more do you want?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You are citing the portion of the law which applies AFTER the law enforcement officer has initiated legal contact. As I correctly pointed out, the Arizona law specifically says they can't detain someone on the basis of "they look like they may be illegal" or anything remotely similar. They have to first have a valid reason for detaining them, other than "looking like" they need detaining. Maybe they jaywalked? Maybe they stabbed somebody? It doesn't matter, as long as the officer has a legitimate reason for detaining them.... THEN and only THEN.... we get into Sec. 2 of the Arizona law!
And as for your continued assertions that illegally crossing our border and breaching national security, is a "civil violation" ....you are insane! While it may not be murder, it certainly isn't jaywalking! You waffle back and forth on this too... you initially admit that crossing the border illegally is a crime, but then you yammer on about procedures for handling "civil violations" as if crossing the border illegally is not a crime! For the record, it IS a Federal CRIME to cross the border illegally... and if Arizona law enforcement, (or ANY law enforcement, for that matter) has "reasonable suspicion" that you have violated the law and crossed the border illegally, they can arrest you, and do have the authority to do so, as well as the constitutional right.
You are claiming that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and you base your arguments upon your opinions and self-serving definitions. What do I want? Give me some Arizona statutory authority or Arizona case law that defines a civil violation. Where do you get the idea that the question is whether it is subject to jail time that makes something a crime? And just what is a crime? Give me some statutory definition of crime, preferably from Arizona. All of this will have to be determined in a court to determine if the Arizona law is unconstitutional. You are unabashably of the opinion that the Arizona law is unconstitutional, now give me some legal reasons for your opinion. Statutory definitions from Arizona or court cases from Arizona that give your definitions. Otherwise, you have your opinion as to what the definitions are, but that is hardly enough if you are arguing the case in court. And you are so hard headedly convinced that the Arizona law is unconstitutional that you must assuredly have the proper information that is necessary in a court to determine the constitutionality of the law. If you are not an oracle, admit it, but quit with your opinions of what the definitions that I have asked for are.
This is a federal law that is being enforced. Regardless...
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00707.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
13-707. Misdemeanors; sentencing
A. A sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall be for a definite term to be served other than a place within custody of the state department of corrections. The court shall fix the term of imprisonment within the following maximum limitations:
1. For a class 1 misdemeanor, six months.
2. For a class 2 misdemeanor, four months.
3. For a class 3 misdemeanor, thirty days.
Gonzales v Peoria should help you imno...
Many of the problems arising from implementation of the City's written policies have derived from a failure to distinguish between civil and criminal violations of the Act. Several of the policy statements use the term "illegal alien," which obscures the distinction between the civil and the criminal violations. In some instances, that term has been used by the City to mean an alien who has illegally entered the country, which is a criminal violation under section 1325. In others, it has meant an alien who is illegally present in the United States, which is only a civil violation.
Many of the problems arising from implementation of the City's written policies have derived from a failure to distinguish between civil and criminal violations of the Act. Several of the policy statements use the term "illegal alien," which obscures the distinction between the civil and the criminal violations. In some instances, that term has been used by the City to mean an alien who has illegally entered the country, which is a criminal violation under section 1325. In others, it has meant an alien who is illegally present in the United States, which is only a civil violation.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You keep forgetting that no matter how much whining you do, that the Courts sided with the Police Department and the City.
