![]() |
it is now, assuming they have "probable cause" to suspect someone is an illegal alien. How do they do that? I guess if they look poor and brown.
Quote:
|
Yeah but, what are you basing that on? The law says lawful contact first, then suspicion. That the media says suspicion then contact doesn't mean that's what the law says.
Srsly, show me something official that says suspicion first and I'll be pissed right along with ya. |
Quote:
The law is fraught with Constitutional issues, from the supremacy clause to 4th and 14th amendment issues. I dont think it can stand up to the test...but time will tell. added: a member of Congress, Brian Bilbray (R-CA) offered his perspective on determining "suspicion": "They (cops) can look at the kind of dress you wear, there’s different type of attire, there’s different type of…right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes."One would hope the AZ law enforcement community has a tougher standard...but the fact is, there is no standard. |
hmm. it's a chicken and egg question, really.
I looked at the law here, and it doesn't really go into that, except to say that they can stop a car if there's a traffic violation, and then ask about immigrant status. |
The AZ law creates a new definition of trespassing:
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:It gives law enforcement the legal cover to apprehend "suspicious" persons....with no legal standard of what constitutes suspicious. Think about it...any person in AZ can now be charged with trespassing by simply standing on any public or private property IF (#2) they cannot prove (by carrying papers at all times) they are a citizen or legal resident. |
I see what you're saying... but not quite. *Any* person cannot be charged, because the code is specific to aliens, presumably legal, but in violation of the trespassing law to some degree, either by being illegal or by not having their papers on them.
|
Quote:
This goes way beyond stopping someone for a traffic violation or a civil disturbance and then, secondarily checking citizenship status. It is using the cover of trespassing to force a person to prove his legal status. IMO, its highly questionable that this is constitutional. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'll leave it at that. |
Quote:
What is the problem? |
Quote:
|
When Dazza was in the US last year he was inspected very thoroughly at every airport he had to pass through. The only thing he could put it down to was the fact that he had a pretty shaggy beard. He didn't care much except when it almost caused him to miss a connecting flight.
|
Quote:
If one wants to comment on a poster being "pissed off all the time" ... or "hate away" (uh Nazi references, whores/cunts/scumbags....) or providing proof when questioned....one should be consistent. |
Glatt has a point. But the reality is that we alreay face increased levels of security in many places where we neve did before.
But if you have never visited other countries, other than the US, it would be obvious that people would find it not natural. Even in the mid 1990's European security was much higher than ours, as well as that in the Orient. That was my experience anyway. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.