Arizona Immigration law

Sort by newest Sort by date
James48843 said:
here-

again, this supports what I am saying.

It's clear from the Arizona law discussion, that if one fails to provide proof of citizenship on the stop, they can be arrested.

No, they can be questioned and their identity can be investigated.

It is clear from the decision in Hiibel, that Hiibel left open the door on Fifth, as well as Fourth Amendment grounds- that if providing your identity will result in your being charged with a crime (like border crossing illegally), that you may still have the right to remain silent, and not answer the question. THAT is what becomes new fertile ground for the Surpeme Court in this new law.

We'll see.
Click to expand...

I doubt it... Here's the reason: the ILLEGAL aliens' mere presence is a crime. Think about it this way -- say a criminal escapes from jail. He's stopped by a cop. The escaped criminal fails to identify himself. The cop detains him until he's identified. You gonna drop the escape charge? His presence outside the jail is illegal. Just like the illegal aliens' presence in this country is, well, illegal.
 
James48843 said:
Just saying- there is a clear body of law in this area already- that all you need to do is tell them who you are. The part about being detained for failing to providing a birth certificate or proof of citizenship, is far beyond what has been litigated before.

And this Arizona law will provide, I'm sure, some interesting cases ahead.

As for me- No, I don't know why you are stopping me. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?

And am I free to go now?
Click to expand...
James, while I agree with you (big surprise there :cheesy:) I don't advise trying it. My husband would probably call that a subsection of failing the attitude test.

"Why didn't you just give him a warning?"

"He flunked the attitude test."
 
You'll need up to 3 pieces of ID.




Driver's Licence only proves you know how to drive a car (at least in theory) and there's a record of your driving ability (or lack thereof) and it can be linked with the licence of your car.
  1. All this does for ID purposes is get you a picture to match your name. For us non-drivers, ID card does the same thing
  2. Driver's license does NOT prove you are a citizen
Birth certificate = Works with a picture ID, unless you changed your name at marriage. Can be substituted with green card, naturalization papers, etc for status of citizenship purposes.
  1. If your last name changed, guess what? You'll need your marriage license too!
Or you can carry your passport around with you, if you have one

It's not the same as showing your Driver's license, that just proves you are registered with the DMV to drive a car, and the cop will only demand it if you happen to be behind the wheel.
 
Silverbird said:
You'll need up to 3 pieces of ID.





Driver's Licence only proves you know how to drive a car (at least in theory) and there's a record of your driving ability (or lack thereof) and it can be linked with the licence of your car.
  1. All this does for ID purposes is get you a picture to match your name. For us non-drivers, ID card does the same thing
  2. Driver's license does NOT prove you are a citizen
Birth certificate = Works with a picture ID, unless you changed your name at marriage. Can be substituted with green card, naturalization papers, etc for status of citizenship purposes.
  1. If your last name changed, guess what? You'll need your marriage license too!
Or you can carry your passport around with you, if you have one

It's not the same as showing your Driver's license, that just proves you are registered with the DMV to drive a car, and the cop will only demand it if you happen to be behind the wheel.
Click to expand...
From what law, rule, or regulation are you quoting?
 



Reid, Schumer, Menendez to unveil immigration reform plan


By Michael O'Brien and Russell Berman - 04/29/10 04:21 PM ET
Senate Democrats will unveil a plan to reform U.S. immigration laws on Thursday afternoon.

The plan will require that benchmarks be met on border security before the status of illegal immigrants is settled, according to a memo prepared by Senate Democratic offices.

The memo indicates the Democrats' plan includes measures to bolster border security and unify standards for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants. The plan also provides a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants who agree to some penalties, including paying back taxes.
The names of three Democratic senators are attached to the memo: Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.).

Reid will unveil the framework for the bill at a 5:45 p.m. press conference, according to a press release sent out by Democrats.

Schumer has been spearheading the immigration reform effort and said this morning that he's been reaching out to Republican senators on the plan.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had worked with Schumer for some time on a proposal, warned Thursday that "if you bring up immigration in this climate, you'll divide the country further."

Graham told The Washington Post's Ezra Klein, though, that while he sympathizes with immigration reform, it just can't be done this year.

"If you go, I can't go with you. Some supporters of immigration reform think I've abandoned them," he said. "But they're not listening. This is just too far for me and for the issue this year."

Other key congressional figures have warned about the feasibility of immigration reform. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said that he doubts Democrats can fit it into their schedule this year.

And while House leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have suggested the Senate must act first on immigration, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned there's "not a chance" that Congress would pass an immigration bill this year.
President Barack Obama on Wednesday night said he favors moving forward on immigration reform, but warned that Congress might not have the political will to take up the issue this year.
RELATED ARTICLES

GOP congressman compares Ariz. law to Nazi Germany
"That's a step in the right direction," one of the most forceful advocates for immigration reform, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), said after learning Senate Democrats would unveil their draft proposal, which he said he had seen.


Gutierrez was unfazed by Obama's comments. The congressman said the process would undergo a lot of "ups and downs" before reform is ultimately achieved.

"It means double down. Be persistent," Gutierrez said. "We can't let our guard down.

"It is what it is, but it is not a death knell."

He said he was opposed to pushing immigration reform as a political maneuver to rally Latinos for the 2010 elections. If a bill can't pass, Gutierrez said, "I don't want a cynical vote."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...nate-democrats-set-to-unveil-immigration-plan
 
Alternate Plan Devised for Immigration

Senate Democrats Pivot to Strategy for Moving Ahead Without GOP Support


By John Stanton and Kathleen Hunter
Roll Call Staff
April 29, 2010, 12 a.m.
Senate Democrats appear dead set on moving comprehensive immigration reform this year even if it comes without GOP support, and they began laying the groundwork Wednesday for a Democrats-only alternative to a bipartisan deal. [more]
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_124/news/45703-1.html
 
Silverbird said:
You'll need up to 3 pieces of ID.





Driver's Licence only proves you know how to drive a car (at least in theory) and there's a record of your driving ability (or lack thereof) and it can be linked with the licence of your car.
  1. All this does for ID purposes is get you a picture to match your name. For us non-drivers, ID card does the same thing
  2. Driver's license does NOT prove you are a citizen
Birth certificate = Works with a picture ID, unless you changed your name at marriage. Can be substituted with green card, naturalization papers, etc for status of citizenship purposes.
  1. If your last name changed, guess what? You'll need your marriage license too!
Or you can carry your passport around with you, if you have one

It's not the same as showing your Driver's license, that just proves you are registered with the DMV to drive a car, and the cop will only demand it if you happen to be behind the wheel.
Click to expand...

Viva La Migra said:
From what law, rule, or regulation are you quoting?
Click to expand...
If her experiences are similar to mine, she's extrapolating from past experience.

Everyone said that airport ID's were going to be no big deal either. Last time I was on a business trip, my nonrefundable flight tickets were not purchased using my full name. When I saw that, I phoned and asked TSA at my regional airport what I needed to do. I was advised to take my driver's licence, my government photo ID, a photocopy of my birth certificate, a photocopy of my marriage certificate, and to have a metal nametag on all my carry-on. And I needed every bit of that in two different airports so it was a good thing I had it all.

Now before anyone goes off on me, I'm not comparing airplane bombers and undocumented aliens. I'm just saying that little regulations can mushroom.
 
If the Dems come up with their own Immigration Plan you can bet the house it will be filled with promises of amnesty, IF?:worried:
Amnesty = Votes = Neutralize the Tea Party!! They hope!:laugh:
 
James: No, I don't know why you are stopping me. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?

And am I free to go now?
Click to expand...
One of my kids respond to me this way, & I would immediately be on top of them for attitude correction.

But, truly, I didn't realize that being pulled over was considered being `detained.'
Wouldn't use of the word `detained' be as signal to the officer there was more to the situation than just a traffic stop?

In fact, the whole of that response sounds like baiting for a hoped for reaction from the officer........... :suspicious:
 
The plan will require that benchmarks be met on border security before the status of illegal immigrants is settled, according to a memo prepared by Senate Democratic offices.

The memo indicates the Democrats' plan includes measures to bolster border security and unify standards for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants. The plan also provides a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants who agree to some penalties, including paying back taxes.
Click to expand...


Amazing, isn't it?

That sounds EXACTLY the plan that President Bush was proposing three years ago, as a bipartisan plan, that got introduced in the Senate, only to be quashed by the republican Senate base.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, or, in its full name, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) was a bill discussed in the 110th United States Congress that would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the approximately 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. The bill was portrayed as a compromise between providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement: it included funding for 300 miles (480 km) of vehicle barriers, 105 camera and radar towers, and 20,000 more Border Patrol agents, while simultaneously restructuring visa criteria around high-skilled workers. The bill also received heated criticism from both sides of the immigration debate. The bill was introduced in the United States Senate on May 9, 2007, but was never voted on, though a series of votes on amendments and cloture took place. The last vote on cloture, on June 7, 2007, 11:59 AM, failed 34-61 effectively ending the bill's chances. A related bill S. 1639, on June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM, also failed 46-53..



The bill's sole sponsor in the Senate was Majority Leader Harry Reid, though it was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy, McCain and Kyl, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and input from President George W. Bush, who strongly supported the bill. For that reason it was referred to in the press by various combinations of these five men's names, most commonly "Kennedy-Kyl". A larger group of senators was involved in creating the bill, sometimes referred to as the 'Gang of 12'.[1] This group included, in addition to the aforementioned senators, Senators Dianne Feinstein, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar and Arlen Specter. Senators Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, and David Vitter led the opposition to the bill.[2][3]
At the same time, the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 was being considered in the United States House of Representatives, although to considerably less public attention.
On June 7, three Senate votes on cloture (a move to end discussion) for the bill failed with the first losing 33-63, the second losing 34-61 and the third losing 45-50.[4] This had been thought by some observers to signal the end of the bill's chances, since on that day, after the first failing vote, Harry Reid had told reporters that, if another vote on cloture failed, "the bill's over with. The bill's gone."[5]
However, at the urging of President Bush, the bill was brought back for discussion in the Senate as bill S. 1639 on June 25.[6] On June 26, a motion to proceed passed the Senate, by a margin of 64-35 (under Senate rules it needed 60 votes).[7] A number of amendments to the bill were considered and rejected. On June 28, the bill failed to get the 60 votes necessary to end debate. The final cloture vote lost 46-53.[8] This effectively ended its chances, and President Bush said he was disappointed at Congress's failure to act on the issue.[9]
Click to expand...




This is the 2007 bill, all over again. Only this time, McCain and Grahm, who helped write it, will come out against it, because now they call it a Democratic plan.





Watch the madness as partisanship trumps fixing what is wrong.



(I would support that bill, but hey, that's me.)
 
I was just wondering if the media will provide lots of coverage, air time videos and endless commentary after Saturday's demonstrations of any strange signs or costumes, verbally nasty comments, threatening gestures, angry expressions, wayward spittle, etc. Then again, maybe it will be covered as is done on the understandably distraut demonstrators against World Bank/IMF meetings and such, i.e. the righteousnous of the demonstration simply explained.
 
A lawyer on the radio today, advocating the "undocumented's" side, likened crossing the border into the USA without proper admittance as an administrative infraction, less than a traffic infraction. I thought it was a felony at some point. Elsewhere it was asserted that an identical offense in Mexico was punishable by 2 years imprisonment.
 
grandma said:
But, truly, I didn't realize that being pulled over was considered being `detained.'
Wouldn't use of the word `detained' be as signal to the officer there was more to the situation than just a traffic stop?

In fact, the whole of that response sounds like baiting for a hoped for reaction from the officer........... :suspicious:
Click to expand...

"Detained" by the police is anything less than being arrested.

You can be detained for questioning, detained while they investigate further, detained could mean simply being held at the scene until more information is forthcoming, or could mean you are taken in for questioning.

If I was tooling along down the highway, and the police pull me over, they are detaining me while they conduct their investigation and/or waiting to here back on the radio, or running my name through there computer. I cannot simply leave at that point, until they tell me I can go.

If I try and take off before they say it's alright for me to go, then I could possibly be charged with fleeing the officer, even though before that moment, they didn't have any crime evidence on me. My simple act of resuming my motoring down the highway, before they told me I was free to go, could be interpreted as an act of fleeing, and therefore a crime.


So yes, officer, my name is XXXXX.

I do not know why you stopped me, and I would like to know, under suspicion of what crime am I being detained? Am I free to go?


And no- these are not the Droids you are looking for.
​
 
Now doesn't this just figure?

Obama takes immigration reform off agenda

WASHINGTON – Immigration reform has become the first of President Barack Obama's major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment. Sounding the death knell was Obama himself.
The president noted that lawmakers may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue — climate change — is already on their plate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_immigration_politics
 
grandma said:
...In fact, the whole of that response sounds like baiting for a hoped for reaction from the officer........... :suspicious:
Click to expand...

James48843 said:
"Detained" by the police is anything less than being arrested. ... I cannot simply leave at that point, until they tell me I can go. ...

So yes, officer, my name is XXXXX.

I do not know why you stopped me, and I would like to know, under suspicion of what crime am I being detained? Am I free to go?
Click to expand...
Grandma, I didn't mean to suggest that James's response was improper. It's just that when a policeman pulls you over, he's not looking for anything other than, "Yes, officer, here are the documents you requested." And if you give him (or her) anything other than the very most polite answer you can possible imagine, he isn't likely to cut you any slack at all. That is what cops mean when they refer to the "attitude test."

James is also correct about the detainment issue. That's not just me saying that, that's spouse saying that, and he knows what he's talking about. He's my expert on three subjects: law enforcement, heavy machinery, and a third one that I won't specify.:cheesy:
 
XL-entLady said:
Grandma, I didn't mean to suggest that James's response was improper. It's just that when a policeman pulls you over, he's not looking for anything other than, "Yes, officer, here are the documents you requested." And if you give him (or her) anything other than the very most polite answer you can possible imagine, he isn't likely to cut you any slack at all. That is what cops mean when they refer to the "attitude test."

James is also correct about the detainment issue. That's not just me saying that, that's spouse saying that, and he knows what he's talking about. He's my expert on three subjects: law enforcement, heavy machinery, and a third one that I won't specify.:cheesy:
Click to expand...

James is not correct about the detainment issue. If you don't believe me, go ahead and ask your husband about a consensual encounter (that has nothing to do with his third field of expertise, I don't think).
 
Minnow said:
James is not correct about the detainment issue. If you don't believe me, go ahead and ask your husband about a consensual encounter (that has nothing to do with his third field of expertise, I don't think).
Click to expand...
Yes, Minnow, whatever you do in Real Life is obviously law enforcement related. So you know that a consensual encounter would quickly become a detainment if you tried to leave the law enforcement officer's presence before answering his/her questions. But that very thin line between consent and detainment is there until the cop takes your papers.
 
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