Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

[Cloud]

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.

Vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.

I laughed. So sue me.

[jinx]

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.

Originally Posted by jinx

Yeah but, the actual law says "for any lawful contact by law enforcement" which, as far as I know, is not having a cop walk up to anyone they want on the street and demand ID. That's what I wanted to know about before getting upset.

It's all about how the initial contact is made.

In fact, the law does now allow a cop to walk up to anyone on the street and demand ID by criminalizing "trespassing" to a much higher level...to mean standing on any public or private property (assuming one is here illegally)...from a city park to a 7-11 store, you can now be charged with "trespassing"...if the cop thinks (no standard) that one is suspicious, he charges "trespassing" and the burden of proof is on the victim to prove he/she is a citizen or legal resident.

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.

[Cloud]

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:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

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.

[jinx]

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.

Originally Posted by jinx

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.

Right...but the burden of proof is now on the person to prove he/she is a citizen or legal resident and NOT on the cop to have reasonable doubt that the person isnt.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cloud

until someone has to pay for amputation and prosthetics.

The Mexican Government?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

Sounds like a great plan. They need to either buy more buses or build bigger holding facilities..

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Jinx, Cloud, skysidhe, don't waste your time.

BTW, I think it would nice for a change if you (all) hold Merc to the same standard applied to others....most recently, Shawnee.

I'll leave it at that.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

BTW, I think it would nice for a change if you (all) hold Merc to the same standard applied to others....most recently, Shawnee.

I'll leave it at that.

What are you talking about. I merely made a statement. Mine the borders, force people to use legal means of access and then address the issue of illegals who are here.

What is the problem?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

We all undergo increased security in airports and for some reason it's tolerated. I don't like it, but it is a special heightened secure area. This new law applies to walking down the sidewalk, driving down the road. This is every day life. This isn't a couple times a year of standing in a line and being frisked in a place where you have the option to go.

That was the most blatant example - not the only one.

[Aliantha]

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What are you talking about. I merely made a statement. Mine the borders, force people to use legal means of access and then address the issue of illegals who are here.

What is the problem?

I was not referencing this particular thread, but your posts throughout.

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.

[TheMercenary]

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.