Ah, c'mon! You know those college students must be up to something. Everyone knows a little education is a dangerous thing. The Bible warns us about eating from the Tree of Knowledge! I bet if you stop them and frisk them randomly you'll find a few with contraband - calculators, pens that could be used to write bad checks, evolution textbooks, contraceptives...

The last I checked Arizona is a leader in kidnapping, murder, and lots of other violent crimes. Yet our legislature thinks the most important use of their time and police resources is to try to arrest and detain more aliens? All of the things they talk about to scare us - murder, robbery, kidnapping, drug dealing, etc. are already illegal. There is no need for another law to go after people committing crimes that actually hurt people. At a time we we are contemplating laying off cops (at least in Tucson), is it really so important to redirect them onto this? After all, the law lets you and I sue the police for not going after immigrants but we have no recourse if they ignore murderers and rapists. Does that make any sense?

I agree wthat there are many problems associated with illegal imigration. But I encourage everyone to read this law and ask yourself whyat is really behind it.

You're right, I have no proof, but there are only two possibilities:
1) He was hiding SOMETHING illegal.
2) He is the biggest d*ck in the world, and just didn't feel like bothering with any increased insurance fees, and didn't even care if I was hurt or not (luckily, I wasn't) or if my truck was damaged (which it was). That's a pretty depressing scenario, because it just means he was a total bast*rd and really makes me lose even more faith in humanity.

Oh, here's the Statute. My Google-Fu was strong today.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

Perhaps not a felony after all, but still a civil crime, and thus, criminal.

Maybe both 1) and 2). But the point is you really had no reason to believe he was an illegal immigrant except because of his behavior and appearance. If a police officer used your criteria he would be breaking federal law and probably violoating the gentleman's civil rights. Leaving the scene of an accident is of course illegal but being afraid of the police and speaking spanish are not, nor are they legal grounds for suspicion of anything.

My wife was rear-ended (by a hispanic kid) who tried to leave the scene but couldn't because there was too much traffic and there was a cop about 2 cars away. Like you, she had her suspicions about why he tried to split. But in his case he had a license, insurance, and he was born here. He was just scared. How do we know this? Because his mom called to apologize! Maybe your guy just needed his mom to remind him how civilized people behave...because I agree he was a d*ck, legal or not. But you really can't assume that he was an illegal immigrant based on what you have described.



Well, you're right 8 USC 1325 would seem to make illegal immigration illegal. But the fine is only $50-$250. I've literally paid more for a legal visa in some countries! The point being, no wonder the feds don't enforce that law. The penalty makes it less serious than your average speeding ticket. Now, I might agree that the penalty should be more, that it should be enforced, and that the law should be strengthened. But for now, it's not and until Congress acts, Arizona is acting inappropriately.

But interestingly, that is not the federal statute cited in the Arizona law. Arizona wants to go after those in violation of 8 USC 1304 and 1306 which deals with registration of aliens rather than with entry. 8 USC 1325 is not even mentioned in the Arizona law. 1304 and 1306 only require alien registration within 30 days and require legal immigrants to carry their papers! Your average illegal immigrant is unlikely to stick around that long I would think. And I think a strong legal arguement could be made for NOT being legal being a defense to teh Arizona law. That would mean that the Arizona law would only apply to LEGAL immigrants under teh federal law.

In theory, I agree. In practice, I disagree.

The police are just as fallable as the rest of the populous. There are great cops, average cops who do what they have to do between 9 and 5 and go home, and downright horrible cops. I would never trust a police officer I did not know with my fate if it were not a circumstance where I truely needed them.

Would I give a DNA swab to prove I was not a suspect in a criminal investigation? No. Would I allow a police officer to randomly search my vehichle for illegal drugs/weapons/whatever? Heck no. It gives power over me to someone I do not know. They are probably the good guys, and for that I laud them and thank them and defer to them as much as I can. I do not, however, let them have influence over my life when it can be prevented.

I don't want to face a criminal investigation for anything planted in my vehichle, or targeted as a major suspect in some horrible criminal investigation because of botched lab work that indicated I was a match. These are both very low risks, but I will not take them for the sake of my own personal sanity or the welfare of my family because I could help good, or potentially very bad cops do what they do.

For these reasons, I sure as heck don't want to have to prove to anyone my legal citizenship, most especially because said proof is subject to someone else's interpretation.

The legal residents of AZ have my sympathy.

A couple of posters here have bought into the emotional argumentation without looking at the practical side of the matter.

12-20 million people live here illegally, how on earth does that happen? I'll tell you how, a colossal failure by our US Government to protect our borders. If the posters here aren't willing to acknowledge that fact then I am not sure any reasonable discussion can occur.

Now that we have 12-20 million people here, how do you address the situation? Those who have opposed the Arizona law have from what I have read given no suggestions for solutions. Would it be fair for me to assume that you favor the idea of amnesty? I have two solid objections to the notion. First, we tried that once with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The law strictly prohibits businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, it also provides a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. Sanctions are not severe enough to discourage hiring of such labor and we know that these illegal immigrants are making a living somehow. Second, the logical conclusion that if you decide to grant a large group of illegal aliens citizenship just because they are a large group then you will be repeating the process over in a few years. There are 6 billion people on this earth and many of them desire the opportunity to live here and this is despite the economic and political problems that exist in this country today. Should we just let everyone who wants to come be granted citizenship? I cannot begin to explain the logistical nightmare such a solution would propose. However, you give people incentive to live here illegally if they know eventually they will gain citizenship.

Many of you have objected to Arizona's laws based on the idea that the Federal Government should be defending our borders but you fail to understand the unique relationship that the states have with our federal branch. The federal government exists because the states decided it should (not the other way around)!!! In other words, if the federal government FAILS Arizona in protecting its borders then it is the responsibility of the state government to make sure its people ARE PROTECTED. I expect the same results from my elected leaders in TN and I hope you do in the state you reside in. The protection includes business makeup, state budgets, local infrastructure, the jobs market, along with protection against violence and harm. The people of Arizona (and this country) have been lucky for the most part. We have a huge unprotected border, what's to stop violent criminals from crossing over? Border states must deal with this huge problem that our government has for the most part created. Are those states going to be reimbursed for the additional overhead involved in managing this problem?

There are many other issues that have been tackled such as the lack of fairness to those who apply through legal channels. The lack of taxes and large fees paid by illegal immigrants. The final issue I would like to address is the scary idea being passed around that we need to grant immigrants amnesty in order for them to vote for our political party (they will owe us). I have read about this in articles and on the comments page of several news sources and the idea makes me sick. The rights and wishes of naturalized citizens are pushed aside in order to gain a greater political clout by creating a new previously unrecognized group of voters. This notion alone should make everyone of you angry. If your favorite political party is not winning elections then all we need to do is sell out a certain group of people (naturalized citizens) in order to gain a larger voting block (illegal aliens) and we will be back in power. You may think that such practices have occurred in politics for a long time but it shouldn't and eventually it will lead to a larger division amongst current citizens and undermine the organizational control and structure of this nation (a nation without borders is not a nation).

I hope more of you will cease from buying into this notion that a person who objects the ideas of amnesty and favors real border protections does so because they are a racist white person. If you allow your emotions to be played in order to gain support for asinine initiatives then they will be played again and again until you finally have to wise up and then it may too late. If you object to this law then I think it appropriate for you to explain where you stand on amnesty and how you would prefer our borders to be protected (if you even prefer that at all).

I certainly acknowledge that the government has failed to protect the border. But if you think the border will ever be secure I invite you to take a walk along it with me. The border is through very rugged territory. It is impossible to seal it. I don't care what any politician or expert says. Go there and see for yourself.

So, to me, the problem can not be addressed by enforcement. It requires a much bigger effort of cooperation between the US and Mexico.


I'd be in favor of amnesty if it were coupled with a long term plan for dealing with immigration. Many of these people have been here for decades and are contributing members of society. Many have children here that are natural born US citizens. We screwed up by letting the problem fester and grow to this magnitude but at this point there are no good solutions.

It's also interesting that you brought up the 1986 Act. We realized then that while blaming illegals was convenient, we could not afford to kick them all out. Food prices would have gone through teh roof. If farmers and meatpackers had to stop exploiting workers and pay the minimum wage, provide healthcare, unemployement insurance, etc. we would be paying several times more for teh food that we eat.

You make several good points about why we do not want to encourage more illegal immigration.



Regulating interstate commerce and conducting foreign affairs is the exclusive power given to the federal government. There is no power in the Constitution for States to take over Federal responsibilities if they don't think the job is being done right.



Yes. That is pretty scary. But teh parties have a dilemma - the D's usually get support from hispanics but they also rely on Big Labor support. Unions don't like illegal immigrant workers and tehy don't like jobs going offshore or south of the border. The R's like to support business. Whether we like it or not, business relies on cheap labor to keep costs down. So, in spite of all teh talk, neither party is likely to be a leader in getting any kind of real reform.





It is certainly possible to support a crackdown on illegal immigrants without being a racist. But with respect to what is going on in Arizona, you need to look more thoroughly into what this legislature did and the anti-hispanic environment created the last few years. They have banned teaching Mexican-American studies in schools, banned speaking spanish, and decimated bilingual education. It is not much different from what was done to blacks in the south in the 60s! Are you subject to being stopped and questioned simply because you are driving down the street? Do you have to show your citizenship papers or birth certificate to any cop who asks?

DoingHomework, that is a shameless strawman. You know darn well that the law requires police to already have a reason for making "lawful contact" with the individual. From an article in the Washington Examiner:



Your implication that this law grants police the power to randomly stop whoever they want, "simply because you are driving down the street," is blatant fear-mongering.



No, but you do have to show your ID to any police officer who asks, even if you're just walking around, minding your own business. You are legally required to prove your identity to any police officer who asks, and they don't even need prior "lawful contact" for that one. Where's the outrage there?

I think the law professor needs to go on a ride along with Sheriff Joe's Boys. They routinely and blatantly make stops they know will not hold up in court just to go after illegal immigrants (who will never get a chance to challenge the legality of the stops). For example, a favorite is failing to have the license plate properly illuminated. Joe says it is ok for his deputies to at least stop and question people when their vehicle only has the manufacturer-provided illumination. Almost everyone stopped for this of course is hispanic. Another typical cause for a stop is having more than 4 people in a car because it raises suspicions that you are trafficing people. Thos are both blatantly racist BS!


Actually, NO! There is no law in the US requiring one to produce identification, except of course when flying and that sort of thing. On the contrary, there is strong opposition to requiring national ID. I admit that not providing ID is likely to get you detained briefly while teh cops try to figure out who you are but it is most definitely NOT probable cause or cause for suspicion. That is well supported by many cases. In most cases, if you are not driving, they cannot even take finger prints or anything else to attempt to ID you. And without probable cause they cannot even detain you unreasonably.

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian, so everything I know about US law I've learned from watching "COPS".

I'm sure it varies by state, but I've seen many, many examples of police asking random citizens to identify themselves. If the person refuses, they're detained until the cop determines who they are. If they lie, they're charged with providing false information to a police officer. Even if they were just standing around, minding their own business, not doing anything even remotely suspicious. Police have the right to demand to know who you are. Even you admit this:



That's my point. You do not have the right to decline to identify yourself to a police officer. If you're walking down the street and a cop demands your name and date of birth, you do not have the option of saying "No thanks" and walking away. The cop will detain you until they can verify who you are.



Again, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even a USAmerican, but I've literally seen this happen multiple times, on camera. Cops will be investigating a crime, and some random citizen will walk by, and the cop will demand their name and date of birth. If they decline to provide it, they're detained until they submit to the demands. If they lie, they're arrested and charged, even if they did nothing else wrong.

So, were these officers blatantly and repeatedly breaking the law, on camera? Or does the law actually allow them to detain anyone they want, even with absolutely no probable cause, until they can prove who they are? Occam's Razor to the rescue ...

Wow, thanks for making me proud to be an American! (note the sarcasm) It is so cool that our greatest export to Canadians seeking education, enlightenment, and entertainment is a show that glamorizes police abuse.



Of course that happens. But it is illegal. And it doesn't vary by State. Those are protections guaranteed under the US Constitution. Americans do not have to identify themselves on demand to police. But most of the idiots you see on Cops don't know that or are doing something illegal that the cop witnesses. If you pay close attention to Law and Order (also required reading on the American Law 101 syllabus) you will note that when they bring someone in that person is always free to leave unless the cops actually witnessed a crime being committed. Absent a police witness there must either be probable cause that the police can defend at an arraignment hearing within a few hours or there must be an arrest warrent issued by a judge based on PC.



Actually I do have the right to declien to identify mysef, or rather, I have no responsibility to do so. I will tell the cop that I am aware that I do not have to identify myself and I will give him my lawyer's phone number. If he suspects I have committed a crime then he can arrest me. But he better have probable cause that a crime had been committed and that I am likely to have done it.

I would actually never verbally answer a cop's questions because I know I have absolutely no good reason to do so. I have a right to demand that every question be in writing and that my answers only be given in writing. That does not make for good TV so you don't rally hear about that. But it is certainly the best way to ensure that your answers are never...shall we say..."twisted" accidentally.



Kombat, don't believe everything you see on TV. "Cops" has been sued seevral times and they have been responsible for countless drunks, drug addicts, and wife-beaters going free because they document behavior that results in charges being dropped for Constitutional violations. That's not actually a big deal to teh police departments involved. When they confront some idiot running around teh neighborhood drunk or high and naked, they are not concerned with rights nor should they be. They get the person offf the street so he is safe and no one has to see his pee pee that doesn't want to and everyone benefits. It makes for good TV and no one cares that very little is done the next day.

If you lie to the cops that's a crime. That's partly why everything I tell them will be in writing. If they are investigating a crime then they have evidence a crime has been committed and can then question peopel in the area. But no one is under any obligation to say anything and refusing to answer questions is not cause or evidence for anything.

So, these are long standing protections under the United States Constitution. Arizona is attempting to give police authority...or rather require police to do things...that have already been ruled unconstitutional. The law is so bad that the courts are going to have to define various terms like reasonable suspicion. Until they do, countless brown skinned people will have their civil rights violated.

Kombat, it's obvious we disagree about this, and that's fine. I can tell from a preponderance of your posts that you are very smart. But I think you fail to understand the freedoms that the US was founded upon and how those are being trampled on by this law. Even though Canada and the US are similar in man ways, we differ profoundly in the protections from government and police authority that we demand.

You're telling me that the cops on "COPS" routinely and brazenly break the law, even though there is a TV camera literally standing right next to them? You're telling me that these illegal acts by the police are broadcast on TV, on a weekly basis, and yet the Attorney General has not gotten involved, even after literally 2 decades of "COPS" on TV?

DoingHomework, with all due respect, I find that very, very hard to believe. If trusted officers of the law are frequently shown violating fundamental constitutional rights on public television week after week, I'm confident they would have been called on it by now. What you're saying just doesn't make sense. It's like saying police regularly plant evidence, on camera, and nobody has ever called "foul" over it.



Fair enough, and I've certainly seen episodes which fit what you describe. But I've also seen several cases where the person literally did nothing wrong. One in particular I'm thinking of was a case where police responded to a domestic disturbance at an apartment building. They were investigating, and a crowd formed outside in the parking lot. One of the people in the crowd was yelling at the cops, "Leave her alone! She ain't done nuthin' wrong! Go back to the donut shop!" One officer walked over and confronted the man. She demanded to see his ID. "I ain't got no ID." She asked him his name. "Lucky." She asked for his real name. "I ain't gotta tell you nuthin'. I'm done talking to you."

You can guess what happened next. She cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of her car. Turns out he had 2 outstanding warrants.

But how was she legally able to learn that, if he hadn't done anything illegal at all? Sure, he was rude and belligerent, but neither of those things are illegal. Did the cop break the law? Will the man go free on a technicality? Will the cop be reprimanded? Suspended? Fired? Violating constitutional rights is a serious transgression for an officer of the law, isn't it? And with the TV crew surrounding her, she would have had to have been collossally stupid to do that, knowing it would be broadcast all over the country.

Or is what she did legal? Does she actually know what she can legally demand, and she used that to put a wanted criminal behind bars?



Right.

But they do have to reveal their identity. The cops won't just let them walk until they know who that person is (and, more relevantly, if they have any outstanding warrants). The cops will not let them leave until they can verify their identity.



That's accurate, once the police know who someone is. You're absolutely right, they can't hold someone without laying charges. But they can hold someone until they know whether or not that person is currently wanted, and they can't know that unless they know the person's identity. Thus, they can hold someone for as long as it takes to verify that person's identity. I've literally seen it happen on TV!

DoingHomework, all these times I've seen it happen on "COPS", it's not like it was the same cop doing it in every episode. The segments were filmed in different cities, with different cops, all over the country. And yet they're all doing it. So are cops systematically trained to routinely violate consistutional rights? Or is what they're doing actually legal?

Can you see why I'm so skeptical of what you're saying? It seems so much more far-fetched than what appears to be the more obvious answer (that it's legal).



DoingHomework, I think you'll agree that this is far from the first law to trample on one of the principles on which your country was founded. Since 9/11, it's been open season on constitutional freedoms. Try this: Take a camera (a nice, big SLR, not a little point-and-shoot), walk up to any federal building (I recommend an IRS building, they've been particularly touchy since that plane crash), stand on the sidewalk (totally public property), and just start taking pictures. See how long it takes for a guard to come over and order you to stop. Ask him if he wants you to delete the photos, and when he says "yes," say "too bad." See if you're "free" to refuse to identify yourself. See if you're "free" to just walk away.

What do you think will happen in that situation? Do you think the guards will act within the law? Do you think maybe you'll find that they have a bunch of laws on their side that you didn't even know had been passed, and that have stripped you of many of the rights you think you have?

I'd like to briefly point out that the Examiner is routinely laughed at because its a Wash Times Metro Leader paper let's just say that it pushes a world viewpoint that is at odds with reality.

So, lump the examiner in with MSNBC and Fox, as biased and unreliable. I dunno if the Post's leader is any better. I tend to read The Economist on the subway.

JerichoHill, you're claiming the Washington Examiner is not a credible source. Since you live there and I don't, I have no reason to doubt your assessment of the credibility of local news sources. That said, my cite sought to illustrate that police must have probable cause to make "lawful contact" with a suspect prior to demanding to see proof of citizenship. Are you denying that this is true? My cite also included a quote from Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. His quote supports my assertion. Are you claiming the quote was reported inaccurately, or fabricated?

If your answer to both those questions is "no," then ... what exactly was your point? Just to stir things up?

Kombat: I did a little bit of research and it looks like we are both partially right but the issue is unsettled by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

In 2004 SCOTUS ruled that state may pass laws the require a person suspected of doing something illegal to identify themselves. But there still must be evidence that a crime has been committed. A cop cannot walk up to a random person on the street and demand ID. And there are Federal laws that prohibit using race, appearance, and various other factors in developing suspicion. Cops must also document what the reason for the suspicion is. They do not have to tell you at the time but they have to put it on the police report and make that available.

In the ruling the Court looked at the 4th Amendment, which protects privacy and prohibts searches and seizures without judicial sanction (i. e. the police cannot act without a search warrant), and at the 5th Amendment granting a right against self-incrimination. It ruled that providing a name is so trivial that it does not violate the 4th Amendment but said that in a case where providing the name provided evidence that led to conviction for another crime, then there might be a violation of the 5th Amendment.



Yes, you were right that it may vary by state. The overall restrictions are in the US Constitution as interpretted by SCOTUS. But states may pass laws allowing police to ask IF there is evidence of a crime.



What you see on Cops is entertainment. A good lawyer could get most of those people off. The cops they follow in those shows often go out "looking for trouble" and they often say as much in the dialog. They probably don't really care though. If they go out and arrest some drunk and get him off the street for a few hours for his own protection no one will care. In the situation you mentioned with teh woman yelling at the cops they might have considered that to be interference with their investigation. That would give them suspicion. It likely would not hold up in court though.

In many areas they also do "targeted enforcement" or whatever they call it. The police will go into an area in large numbers on a specific night and time. Often what you see on Cops are these kinds of operations. They try to stop as many people as possible to create a high profile. Joe Arpaio does this kind of thing in Phoenix all the time. They are almost always in hispanic neighborhoods. Nearly all of the arrests made do not result in conviction. The sherrifs only goal seems to be to make himself look good and to harrass people because of their race. There are several organizations that have documented abuse.



They push the envelope. It takes a long time and a lot of money for challenges to work their way through the US court system. The landmark case you might have heard of is Miranda vs. Arizona. It dealt with a man convicted in 1963 of rape and murder. It took several years for the SCOTUS ruling. It is unlikely that anyone will have the resources or motivation to challenge police abuses for less serious offenses. Nevertheless, the police have really started pushing the envelope in teh last few years and there are several cases working their way through the appeals process including at least one from Arizona involving teh same kind of abuses I am refering to and you describe from Cops. The facts are not disputed. The issues are whether the behavior was legal. Sherrif Joe's abuses of immigrants are already teh subject of a US Department of Justice investigation. Federal and international authorities are separately invesitigating prisoner abuses at his tent jails.

Lest you think this is off-topic, the sponsor of the immigration bill is one of Joe's buddies and a former undersherrif that worked for him.




Hmm, you are right, we have lost our freedoms. But I am not nearly as likely to have problems as someone of arab descent. And that is called racial profiling.

Many of these things you refer to are also still working their way through the courts. In almost every case I am aware of the SCOTUS has ruled against the government and sided with the rights of the accused. It will certainly take many years though.

Someone has suggested to me that this is not racism but rather McCarthyism. Perhaps that is true. It took 10-20 years for the abuses of McCarthy and his followers to be shown for the violations they were even though their was wide support at the time. I suspect that the same thing will happen with the immigration law and many of the federal laws you refer to enacted after 9/11. But a lot of people will suffer in teh meantime.

That was actually one of the problems with the law initially that the supporters claim they fixed with a later law. "Lawful contact" is not a precise term. If you are mugged and you call the cops to report it, they have made a "lawful contact" with you. They can check you immigration status and deport you now for being a crime victim. I guess that would be nice so they can eliminate all those pesky reports of cops having a little baton practice on illegal immigrants.

Kris Kobach is another bully that opposes civil rights every chance he gets. He would undoubtely get along well with Joe McCarthy and Joe Arpaio. He is a mouthpiece for hate groups. I would not be surprised to see him in a white robe with a pointy hat.