Arizona Immigration law

Sort by newest Sort by date
Have any of you opposing this bill actually read it? It's not terribly long. If any of you think that this law says an out-of-state drivers' license is not valid in Arizona, please point me to the passage.

James... exactly when are you going to cease with the "a cop has to have probable cause to stop" line? Haven't we already put that to rest?

If you require a law enforcement officer to have probable cause before he stops, you are fomenting anarchy. The police presence in this country will become a reactionary force only. This is why I will not budge on this point. In theory and in reality, this does not work.

So, if in you're idea of America, the Fourth Amendment means a police officer has to have probable cause before he can stop or question or conduct a consensual encounter, then I respectfully do not want to live in your version of America.
 
XL-entLady said:
...The HP told him that he didn't know what the regulatory elements of the law were going to be yet but he advised my brother to carry a certified copy of his birth certificate while in AZ until that was all worked out. Then he said it could have been even worse. Because if my brother didn't currently have the same name on his drivers license as appeared on his birth certificate (think "women who change their last name when they get married") then he would have to have a legal transition document (such as a marriage license) too.

This thing just keeps getting better and better. :(
Click to expand...

Viva La Migra said:
If anyone is interested in the facts, here is a link to the text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Here is a link to a summary page.
Click to expand...
And the issue that I and a lot of other folks have with this is that nobody yet knows what the following encompasses:


"20

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21
​
​
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS​

​

22
​
​
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS​

​

23
​
​
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,​

​

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."


That's what the AZ highway patrolman was saying. Nobody knows yet what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable attempt" so he was advising my brother what to do to ensure that he wasn't detained.​
 
Minnow said:
Have any of you opposing this bill actually read it? It's not terribly long. If any of you think that this law says an out-of-state drivers' license is not valid in Arizona, please point me to the passage.

James... exactly when are you going to cease with the "a cop has to have probable cause to stop" line? Haven't we already put that to rest?

If you require a law enforcement officer to have probable cause before he stops, you are fomenting anarchy. The police presence in this country will become a reactionary force only. This is why I will not budge on this point. In theory and in reality, this does not work.

So, if in you're idea of America, the Fourth Amendment means a police officer has to have probable cause before he can stop or question or conduct a consensual encounter, then I respectfully do not want to live in your version of America.
Click to expand...

"Probable cause" is what you have to have to be arrested. To be stopped and detained for up to 72 hours you have to have "reasonable suspicion." These are legal terms of art, folks. And you are taught in a police academy that the first question you ask is, "Do you know why I stopped you?" That is all you have to prove you did for the courts to say you had reasonable suspicion.
 
XL-entLady said:
And the issue that I and a lot of other folks have with this is that nobody yet knows what the following encompasses:


"20

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS​


22

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS​


23

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,​


24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."​



That's what the AZ highway patrolman was saying. Nobody knows yet what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable attempt" so he was advising my brother what to do to ensure that he wasn't detained.​
Click to expand...

3rd and 4th words speak volumes: lawful contact... a police officer will not pull you over on suspicion of being Hispanic. If you are suspected of breaking another law, then your citizenship comes into question, then he is allowed to investigate... same as federal law.

If you have legally changed your name, then you are required to change it on your state drivers' license. That's the law. Don't like it? Write your state congressman. I happen to think that law is wise in a myriad of ways.
 
XL-entLady said:
"Probable cause" is what you have to have to be arrested. To be stopped and detained for up to 72 hours you have to have "reasonable suspicion." These are legal terms of art, folks. And you are taught in a police academy that the first question you ask is, "Do you know why I stopped you?" That is all you have to prove you did for the courts to say you had reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I think:). Would you please enlighten others on the board who say they are all for "Enforcement" of the law but then say that a cop has to have probable cause to even make a stop?
 
minnow, I missed the part where James used the term "probable cause". I know the difference and that "reasonable" has already been ruled permissible. Point of implementation is determining what is "reasonable". Apparently the bar is even lower than I thought, based on what Lady said.
 
James48843;268914I believe in law enforcment carrying out the law. I have no problem with that position. What I personally have a BIG problem with- is the aibility to stop a person said:
Alevin (or spanish minnow ;)) ... this was the latest post. He had done it earlier in this thread as well.

As far as what Lady said, for most every traffic stop (other encounters differ a bit), she's pretty much right. Traffic infraction allows the stop (expired tags, no signal, unable to maintain your lane, etc.) therefore, the cop is allowed to question.
Click to expand...
 
So here's a cop joke for you. It illustrates the "reasonable suspicion" traffic stop stuff. To get the joke, you have to know that fundamentalist "prophet" Warren Jeffs was in hiding at the time to try to avoid arrest warrants for his activities related to under-age girls.

Why did the highway patrol trooper do a traffic stop on Warren Jeffs? One of his wives was out of her car seat.
 
XL-entLady said:
And the issue that I and a lot of other folks have with this is that nobody yet knows what the following encompasses:


"20

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS​


22

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS​


23

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,​


24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."​



That's what the AZ highway patrolman was saying. Nobody knows yet what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable attempt" so he was advising my brother what to do to ensure that he wasn't detained.​
Click to expand...
What constitutes a lawful contact has been addressed by the courts many times. Cops generally know what constitutes lawful contact, though no doubt someone will challenge their arrest under this law in court.

I can't say whether the courts have decided what consititutes a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person. That may be a subject of future litigation.
 
Viva La Migra said:
What constitutes a lawful contact has been addressed by the courts many times. Cops generally know what constitutes lawful contact, though no doubt someone will challenge their arrest under this law in court.

I can't say whether the courts have decided what consititutes a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person. That may be a subject of future litigation.
Click to expand...

Exactly... and coming from La Migra, this should echo very loudly!!!

The Border Patrol is not perfect. But would you agree VLM, that by virtually making the agents automatons, making them almost an entirely reactionary force was not wise? The BP did (and still do) their job well -- when allowed to. Political will to enforce the law slipped and the BP agents' ability to do their job was slowly and steadily taken away. As is the case with every law enforcement agency, the BP depend on local, state and other federal agencies also doing their job. Immigration law should be enforced by every other agency as well.

Sanctuary cities are the truly unconstitutional entities here.
 
Viva La Migra said:
What constitutes a lawful contact has been addressed by the courts many times. Cops generally know what constitutes lawful contact, though no doubt someone will challenge their arrest under this law in court.

I can't say whether the courts have decided what consititutes a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person. That may be a subject of future litigation.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with everything you've said. And that is also why my brother, who looks Hispanic, was advised to carry his birth certificate with him while driving in Arizona.

Which is a very strange thought to me. I never thought I'd have to carry my papers with me on the street in my country.
 
XL-entLady said:
I absolutely agree with everything you've said. And that is also why my brother, who looks Hispanic, was advised to carry his birth certificate with him while driving in Arizona.

Which is a very strange thought to me. I never thought I'd have to carry my papers with me on the street in my country.
Click to expand...

This bill is just about enforcing the law and making sanctuary cities liable for not enforcing the law. Again, pulling someone over on suspicion of being Hispanic is not allowed in this bill. If someone is lawfully encountered by law enforcement and the officer has suspicion that the person is here illegally, then he can and should inquire further. All one needs is a valid form of ID.

Not to make this personal, but you wanna know how many family members I have here in the U.S. that "look" Hispanic? I can't count them all -- there are too many. Wanna know how many of them actually give a second thought to being pulled over and "asked for their papers?" Zero. That's because they were either born here or immigrated legally and they are subject to the same laws every other citizen is subject to. The citizens just carry their drivers license and the permanent residents waiting to be naturalized carry their green card (it isn't green) and their state issued ID. They can go through Arizona any time they want.

Legal immigration, read all about it:
From the uscis.gov website:

General Path to Citizenship



There are various naturalization provisions that allow permanent residents (green card holders) to become U.S. citizens. The most common of these provisions is section 316(a) of the INA which allows a person who has been a permanent resident for at least 5 years to apply for naturalization
Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the INA, an applicant must:
  • Be 18 or older
  • Be a permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
  • Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application
  • Have continuous residence in the United States as a permanent resident for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of the filing the application
  • Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
  • Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization
  • Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
  • Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law.
 
XL-entLady said:
I never thought I'd have to carry my papers with me on the street in my country.
Click to expand...


You never will have to Lady ;)

Ohhh my gosh !! Are you kidding me ???

5'10" and as femenine as you can get :toung:

Red hair :nuts: and fair skinned


Trust me Lady -- on the street -- the crowds will part and ohh and ahh wherever you go

puddles will be covered with coats and jackets to keep your feet dry

the men will bow and the women will kurtsy

police and all others will eagarly and warmly offer their assistence


Never fear -- they won't mess with you
 
XL-entLady said:
I absolutely agree with everything you've said. And that is also why my brother, who looks Hispanic, was advised to carry his birth certificate with him while driving in Arizona.

Which is a very strange thought to me. I never thought I'd have to carry my papers with me on the street in my country.
Click to expand...
THIS IS NOT A FREAKING HISPANIC ISSUE! It's about stopping the flow of illegal aliens from ANY other country into this country. Please stop the spin doctoring!

Neither your brother nor you should have to carry more than your driver's license or other form of government issued identification while in Arizona, or any other state in this union. Unless your state is one that knowingly provides driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, your license will more than likely be prima facie evidence of citizenship. Until the law changed with respect to passport requirements at land border ports of entry, a drivers license was prima facie evidence for someone claiming U.S. citizenship. If I didn't believe that person was a citizen, I had to prove they weren't before I could arrest them on an immigration violation. I am confident this will be the case in Arizona as well.
 
Well on to something a little lighter :)


According to the Beatles:

Jo Jo left his home in Tuson AZ ...




... I wonder why ????
 
XL-entLady said:
And the issue that I and a lot of other folks have with this is that nobody yet knows what the following encompasses:


"20

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS​


22

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS​


23

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,​


24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."​



That's what the AZ highway patrolman was saying. Nobody knows yet what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable attempt" so he was advising my brother what to do to ensure that he wasn't detained.​
Click to expand...
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....must be an illegal..Simple:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NewsFeeder
Recoveries Top 100,000; Trump Wants U.S. Reopened: Virus Update
Replies
0
Views
371
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
tsptalk
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Rules, Guidelines, and TOS
Replies
1
Views
52K
tsptalk
tsptalk
Back
Top