What does an illegal immigrant look like?

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
April 29, 10:13 PM · JoAnn Blake - DC Policy Reform Examiner

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer appeared confused during a news conference when asked how police would identify illegal immigrants in the state. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like," she answered. "I can tell you that there are people in Arizona who assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

Okay, some people think they know what illegals look like, but how correct are those assumptions?

Tucson police officer Martin Escobar, who filed a lawsuit today in federal court, believes there are no race-neutral criteria to suspect or identify who is unlawfully in the U.S. -- not a person's proximity to the Mexican border, not linguistic characteristics, not skin color, not the type of vehicle driven. He is asking that law enforcement be exempt from enforcing the Arizona's immigration law.

Escobar further believes that the new law will impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the commission of crimes. Here's his complaint: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/29/escobar.pdf

From far-right field, GOP contender in Iowa Dr. Pat Bertoche thinks he has a fine idea on how to track illegal immigrants, another example of spreading anti-immigration sentiments:

"I think we should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are going...I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal? That's not a popular thing to say but it's a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under."

This suggestion is beyond racist and inhumane, especially shocking when coming from a physician. But after his comment was publicized and people expressed outrage, Bertoche simply said it was taken out of context.

Wouldn't California's experience have served as a deterrent to Arizona from taking immigration matters into its own hands? The Golden State ended up spending millions to defend lawsuits; Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's reputation became so tarnished he lost re-election.

I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area when Proposition 187 was approved by 58% of voters in 1994. The concerns were mostly economic in the state's attempt to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care and public education.

Prop. 187 was found unconstitutional because it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to immigration. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put it the other day: "States cannot set their own foreign policy."

I don't recall as big an uproar in California and elsewhere as Arizona is experiencing over its immigration law, but California's law only allowed police to ask the immigration status of a person who was arrested for a crime, not just based on "reasonable suspicion."

Still, you can't really blame the states for trying to take care of serious problems. The federal government needs to do a much better job of securing the country's borders so states won't have reason to "go rogue."

Here's information on the marches supporting immigration reform around the country:

http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/march-index/

day-amigos.jpg
 
I admitt--that one caught Brewer off gaurd--and it was a trap.

The way J Brewer should have answered that is--"They can look like anybody from any race--and are, but here in Arizona, most of them are Mexicans comming across our border unotherized." That would have been a ending to a racial profile concern--right? Or is there another trapping question in the wings.

Look---if you had her responsibilites (which is not to defend our people against international invasion), and your citiznes are getting killed---you have to do something.

She did the right thing--I just hope the cops do. IMO--there is not a group of people in the USA who break the law more than our police force, because there is little acountability with them.
 
Last edited:
signalmankenneth said:
April 29, 10:13 PM · JoAnn Blake - DC Policy Reform Examiner

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer appeared confused during a news conference when asked how police would identify illegal immigrants in the state. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like," she answered. "I can tell you that there are people in Arizona who assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

Okay, some people think they know what illegals look like, but how correct are those assumptions?

Tucson police officer Martin Escobar, who filed a lawsuit today in federal court, believes there are no race-neutral criteria to suspect or identify who is unlawfully in the U.S. -- not a person's proximity to the Mexican border, not linguistic characteristics, not skin color, not the type of vehicle driven. He is asking that law enforcement be exempt from enforcing the Arizona's immigration law.

Escobar further believes that the new law will impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the commission of crimes. Here's his complaint: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/29/escobar.pdf

From far-right field, GOP contender in Iowa Dr. Pat Bertoche thinks he has a fine idea on how to track illegal immigrants, another example of spreading anti-immigration sentiments:

"I think we should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are going...I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal? That's not a popular thing to say but it's a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under."

This suggestion is beyond racist and inhumane, especially shocking when coming from a physician. But after his comment was publicized and people expressed outrage, Bertoche simply said it was taken out of context.

Wouldn't California's experience have served as a deterrent to Arizona from taking immigration matters into its own hands? The Golden State ended up spending millions to defend lawsuits; Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's reputation became so tarnished he lost re-election.

I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area when Proposition 187 was approved by 58% of voters in 1994. The concerns were mostly economic in the state's attempt to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care and public education.

Prop. 187 was found unconstitutional because it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to immigration. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put it the other day: "States cannot set their own foreign policy."

I don't recall as big an uproar in California and elsewhere as Arizona is experiencing over its immigration law, but California's law only allowed police to ask the immigration status of a person who was arrested for a crime, not just based on "reasonable suspicion."

Still, you can't really blame the states for trying to take care of serious problems. The federal government needs to do a much better job of securing the country's borders so states won't have reason to "go rogue."

Here's information on the marches supporting immigration reform around the country:

http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/march-index/

day-amigos.jpg
Click to expand...

Why do you hate illegal immigrants, Kenny??
 
You are trying to make a point, and we get it.

But the facts are that 500,000 illegal immigrants cross our southern border from Mexico every year.

The USA has the 5th largest spanish speaking population in the world. Now speaking spanish is not the issue, but the numbers crossing the border certainly is.



I am sure you could find someone who immigrated illegally from Lithuania. But the lithuanian illegals are not flooding the country at teh astounding rate that the hispanics have been for decades.
 
RStringfield said:
Which the courts have ruled is not probable cause for an arrest without a warrant. Not even the feds can do it away from the border.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware anyone was suggesting the police should arrest anyone without a warrant......certainly the Arizona statute doesn't call for it.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I wasn't aware anyone was suggesting the police should arrest anyone without a warrant......certainly the Arizona statute doesn't call for it.....
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. I have pointed it out several times now. Section 2 E...

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.

...

Do I need to translate? Of course...

Illegal presence is cause to remove a person from the United States. All a lack of documentation provides probable cause for is illegal presence, not a crime and the feds cannot arrest someone without a warrant for it without probable cause of an actual crime or reason to believe that the person is a flight risk.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes, it does. I have pointed it out several times now. Section 2 E...

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.

...

Do I need to translate? Of course...

Illegal presence is cause to remove a person from the United States.
WELL, THERE YOU FUCKING GO, BRIGHT GUY! All a lack of documentation provides probable cause for is illegal presence, not a crime and the feds cannot arrest someone without a warrant for it without probable cause of an actual crime or reason to believe that the person is a flight risk.
Click to expand...

SEE ITALICS ABOVE
 
RStringfield said:
I read the law and quoted the shit I was talking about. Section 2E. Your vague bullshit does not further discussion. Make a point or stfu.
Click to expand...


A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

I'll assume you have a problem with this? You have conspiracy theory fantasies that cops are just going go out and stop random latinos. You are crazy. that's the problem. It's you.
 
I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.


The cops can be sued if they violated rights. The protection is right in the law! Read it yourself!!
 
J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.
 
UH OH! another scary passage!

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.


OMG they're stop every latino family!
 
But they're just doing the jobs that americans don't want.--All those unemployed americans!



A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED
7 ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP
8 PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR
9 IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
10 B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS
11 STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT
12 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF
13 THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED
15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT
16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT
17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
23 2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
24 RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS
25 DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).

A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
30 OFFENSE TO:
31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD
36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR
37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE
38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES
39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
40 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF
41 THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO,
42 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
43 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
44 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR
45 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.

C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
2 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT
3 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS
4 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND
5 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.




OH snap! you can lose your vehicle if you're even giving an illegal a ride. LOL hell yes! Time to hire an american citizen. Replacing a vehicle is far too expensive compared to a few bucks an hour extra.



You know what the liberals do here? They give the illegals there own gated area where contractors can pick them up-- and they also make sure they get $10/hr. I still don't know how it works. It's too infuriating for me to think about. I pay a license fee of several thousand dollars to have a right to contract. I have to carry insurance and bonding. If I have employees, I have to have proof of liability insurance for them. I don't understand a government organization helping illegal activity to take place. I don't risk the penalties and liabilites of not having my ducks in order, but I easily could.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top