Texas considering similar immigration law

[Thomas Rogers]

State and local laws that essentially allow law enforcement to stop anyone on the street and ask to "show their papers" are unconstitutional. Arizona and any other states (or towns within) that are thinking of passing such laws should be ashamed of themselves.



Read all about it in the 4th amendment and the implied expectation of privacy that we all have. That expectation has been legally upheld to pertain to "one's person", and as such authorities simply can't ask a person for their papers, ID, etc, simply because they are in public. The US is not yet Germany circa 1940. But if laws like this are allowed to be passed it one time might be.



The SCOTUS will and should strike down any such state or local laws.



Above Richard L said:

[Remember, even now, police can stop anyone on the street and ask them for identification and do not have to tell you why you were stopped. They can always just say that you matched the description of someone they were looking for.

True. The police could lie and say that a person stopped matches the description of someone described in an APB. Laws won't serve their purpose if cops are corrupt, regardless of how constitional. If there is probable cause, then fine, ask for identification. If a policeman is going to "make up" probable cause, or otherwise frame people, no amount of laws are going to protect us. The deterent of such bad behavior by police is the penalties (civil and criminal) if caught.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

TJR, I have been asked for ID myself. Once in public, once as passenger,driver was stop for speeding. When I checked into it. I found it was legall. All the cop had to express was they were looking for someone that matched.

I just remembered. I was stoped as a driver late one night. After the cop gave my liscense back. He said my car matched a suspect.

From what you say. Would that make liscense check points illegall? It happens in my city all the time.

If you dont have a liscence or insurance. Your car gets towed even if there is no arrest. As per order of our mayor. They do have free taxi ride. Only for adults with kids in the car.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

Police already have the right to stop anybody and ask for ID. They don't need any reason. They are not searching you and they are not violating any of your rights. The Constitution only applies to US Citizens and does not include illegal aliens



That is where the problem lies. We are extending our Constitutional Rights to people who enter this country illegally. There is nothing in the Constitiution that prohibits a police officer from asking any citizen for ID and like it or not, it is actually a very common practice.



I ask you to find any legal presidence where any police officer was charged and convicted of any civil rights violations for asking someone to show them ID. Hell, I have been carded at the local super market when buying beer or wine, and I am 3 times the legal drinking age. You are often asked for ID if you cash a check, apply for a loan, or anything were they want to know you are who you say you are. I was even asked for my ID even when I bought furniture and paid cash. Everybody wants to see an ID, so why can't the police.



...Rich

 

[Les]

State and local laws that essentially allow law enforcement to stop anyone on the street and ask to "show their papers" are unconstitutional. Arizona and any other states (or towns within) that are thinking of passing such laws should be ashamed of themselves.

Disagree, it's time our borders were shut down. Billions of dollars leave this country every year when illegal aliens send money home. As illegals, they have no rights and if the states have to ramp up their laws to get the job done, more power to them. The majority of legal residents in Arizona are in favor of this law and it appears Texas is next on the list to institute theirs. If I was in another country I wouldn't have the rights their citizens have, and I don't expect to, so why should we extend the same rights to those that have entered this country illegally. The comparison to Germany circa 1940 to these laws is ludicrous, Nazi atrocities were not towards border crossers and no one is trying to kill them.

The police could lie and say that a person stopped matches the description of someone described in an APB. Laws won't serve their purpose if cops are corrupt, regardless of how constitional. If there is probable cause, then fine, ask for identification. If a policeman is going to "make up" probable cause, or otherwise frame people, no amount of laws are going to protect us. The deterent of such bad behavior by police is the penalties (civil and criminal) if caught.

You are right regarding corrupt police officers, however, this would be the same majority of corrupt officers currently employed. You are riding that slippery slope of presuming all police officers would behave corruptly if given this power.

Police already have the right to stop anybody and ask for ID. They don't need any reason. They are not searching you and they are not violating any of your rights. The Constitution only applies to US Citizens and does not include illegal aliens

Exactly...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL said:

Police already have the right to stop anybody and ask for ID. They don't need any reason.

Take a quick read at the article linked below. What we are talking about is "stop and identification" law statutes. I'm not simply offering opinion on this topic. I did real research on this issue years ago for a personal incident I was a made aware of (happened to a friend).



Yes, police, can stop anyone and ask for identification, but the person being asked can simply refuse to supply it if the stop is a consensual stop. People in the United States do not have to carry identification, for example. It's simply not required. A driver's license on one's person when driving is a whole different thing. That's required to show proof of the right to a privilege.



From the article, these statues deal with three different types of law enforcement and citizen interaction situations, and they include: Consensual, Detention, and Arrest.



In the Consensual instance the officer can ask the citizen for identification, but the citizen does not have to comply. If the citizen refuses to supply the identification there is nothing the officer can do.



In the Detention and Arrest case, obviously there is probable cause and the laws are clear...the person has to identify themselves.



Richard L also said:

They are not searching you and they are not violating any of your rights.

This is a privacy issue. People have the right to privacy and anonymity when walking down the street and not doing anything wrong (or suspected of doing anything wrong). The search in this case would be the illegal request for identification.

The Constitution only applies to US Citizens and does not include illegal aliens.

True, but note that above I keep saying "citizen". Of course, the main sticky point here is that a law enforcement officer can't know or assume that a person being stopped is or isn't a citizen. So, if a police officer on a whim asks a person for his identification, there is no legal reason for that person to provide it if they are a citizen...and if forced to that person's rights are being infringed. If the person is an illegal, well, you see the issue, I hope.



Eddie S said:

TJR, I have been asked for ID myself. Once in public, once as passenger,driver was stop for speeding. When I checked into it. I found it was legall. All the cop had to express was they were looking for someone that matched.

I just remembered. I was stoped as a driver late one night. After the cop gave my liscense back. He said my car matched a suspect.

Right. If the copyhad probable cause, for example, you matched the description of someone they are looking for, then that would fall under the "detention" case I described above and you would be legally compelled to provide ID.

From what you say. Would that make liscense check points illegall? It happens in my city all the time.

If you dont have a liscence or insurance. Your car gets towed even if there is no arrest. As per order of our mayor. They do have free taxi ride. Only for adults with kids in the car

As I said, driving isn't a right. It's a privelege. For that reason, police can ask you to provide proof of license and check your license for outstanding infractions, etc.



Les said:

Disagree, it's time our borders were shut down.

I agree it's time to shut down our borders. But these laws don't do that. They are feel-good laws, IMHO. From my perspective these local laws will simply create an environment of harrassment for legal and illegal immigrants that will force them to move elsewhere, moving the problem to someone elses community or state. It doesn't fix the problem, it doesn't close the borders.



Les also said:

Billions of dollars leave this country every year when illegal aliens send money home.

Legal aliens send mony home too. So what?

As illegals, they have no rights and if the states have to ramp up their laws to get the job done, more power to them.

Agreed, they have no rights. But these laws infringe on citizens rights to privacy and illegal seizure.

The majority of legal residents in Arizona are in favor of this law and it appears Texas is next on the list to institute theirs. If I was in another country I wouldn't have the rights their citizens have, and I don't expect to, so why should we extend the same rights to those that have entered this country illegally.

The majority of whites in Alabama circa 1950 favored segregation laws too. Doesn't mean it was right. Sometimes our laws protect the minority from the majority.

The comparison to Germany circa 1940 to these laws is ludicrous, Nazi atrocities were not towards border crossers and no one is trying to kill them

Not ludicrious. A police state in which people have to identify themselves for no reason other than the police are asking is exactly what Germany was, and that's what these communities will turn into if these laws are allowed.



Another issue is that the Arizona law requires the LEO to have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person being asked for identification is an illegal alien. What constitutes a "resonable suspicion?" Opponents fear it will simply be the color of one's skin, or even worse, being brown while speaking Spanish in public.



I actually am in favor of profiling when it comes to priveleges like, airline travel, etc. But for someone walking down the street to have to prove who he is she is just doesn't FEEL RIGHT in my America.



Read the article linked below...

 

[Bud Williams]

This is a privacy issue. People have the right to privacy and anonymity when walking down the street and not doing anything wrong (or suspected of doing anything wrong). The search in this case would be the illegal request for identification.

I think the expectation of privacy when in public is a false expectation.

In a public place, we are photographed all the time, redlight camera, security cameras,

ATM cameras, you should not expect privacy in a public place.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bud,



Survellience is what you are describing and it doesn't invade someone's privacy to the same extent that stopping them, and asking them to produce identification does.



I agree that we don't have the right to privacy as most would think of privacy while we are in public. I should have chosen my words better.



What people expect is that they shouldn't have to be stopped and asked for identification simply because a policeman wants you to prove something about yourself (your identity, your citizenship, etc). Sure, if crossing a border, or boarding a plane, people expect such requests for identification so that they can enjoy said priveleges. But simply walking down the street...people shouldn't be harrassed.



TJR

 

[H D]

 

[H D]

I applaud Arizona's initial effort. It's not sufficient, though. The only way to really stop it, is to stop it at the money source. Fine companies out of existence for hiring illegal aliens. When the jobs only go to citizens, the flow of illegals stop, they go somewhere else for jobs (home?), Americans gain employment, the market value of wages is allowed to work properly (or better, the gov't has their hand in so many places, I don't think it will ever work properly), and we get a more even taxes-in/benefits-out system.



The "jobs Americans don't want to do" thing is ridiculous. About 18% of our citizens would happily take any job right now. That's 18% of true unemployment for those of you who are going to try to correct me with the rosy, just-sub 10% unemployment figure the government and its media like to feed you.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh said:

I fail to see how this would be harassment for legal immigrants. They'll be able to prove citizenship the same as you or I, and they'll go about their day. So, what's the issue?

If you don't see an issue, then I'm probably not going to persuade you otherwise. But for me, personally, it would be an issue. If I am walking down the street, minding my own business and an LOE stops me, delays me, and I am forced to provide identification and prove of citizenship (or other legal status) then I would have a HUGE problem with that.



Hugh also said:

Again, read SCOTUS rulings about the 4th Amendment. Google "reasonable expectation of privacy."

I've read it and the related "stop and identification" statutues and it absolutely DOES apply. Most states have laws on the books that clearly state that citizens DO NOT have to comply with a stop and identification action on the part of a LEO. These statutes exist, and cases against the police won because of the Constitution.



Hugh also said:

This law is only going to be used when someone is stopped for a legitimate reason. Speeding, for instance.

That's not the way I understand the bill. Please provide me the evidence of that. If what you are describing is true, then there would be no need for the bill as the situations you describe fall under the "dentention" scenario I described above and was referenced in the Wikipedia article. When detained by a LOE you have to provide identification if requested. There are already laws that provide for that.



Lastly, Hugh said:

If illegal aliens refrain from any illegal activities other than their existence within our borders, they'll be fine and go along happily draining our tax system and providing work at real market value wages.

Okay, if you believe that then how exactly will this bill help? Likewise, if LEOs can already require identification of someone caught doing something illegal (they can), then how exactly does this bill as you describe it change anything?



Hint: The change is that people can be stopped in the consentual scenario and asked to provide identification, and the LEO only needs to have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person might be an illegal. Again, what does that mean? What is the criteria?



I'm surprised that so many are easily swayed by the chest-betting that has gone on with this bill; and don't see that it really won't solve the overall problem (illegals will just move around), and in the process, bills like this erode the civil liberties of us all.



To paraphrase the old saying: When they came for the illegals and cast guilt on even the innocent, I said nothing;.... Well, for me, I'm saying something.



Hugh, at least you recognize this isn't going to solve the problem. You are right, you have to hit companies and largely small businesses where they live, in their bank account, in order to solve this problem. I've often said that a large team of forensic accountants could poor through the corporate and business tax records of small companies and figure out where illegals are being hired with some reasonable suspicion. That's how you solve this problem.



But be cautious, for when you do, probably 2 in 5 (guessing here) of each of our small busines owning friends will be directly hurt by the new laws and increased scrutiny...even those not hiring illegals.



TJR

 

[H D]

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

You are right, you have to hit companies and largely small businesses where they live, in their bank account, in order to solve this problem. I've often said that a large team of forensic accountants could poor through the corporate and business tax records of small companies and figure out where illegals are being hired with some reasonable suspicion. That's how you solve this problem.

On the surface that may sound easy but it is not that simple.



I did some computer consulting for a local pre-cast concrete company that was caught several times for hiring a few illegal aliens. In each case the illegals presented documents to support their right to be in the US. The INS agents said the documents were forgeries. The owner of the business asked just how was he supposed to tell a real green card from a forgery? The INS agent told him they were not allowed to tell him how they can spot a real green card from a forgery? Also, the governement does not have any way for an employer to check out if any potential employee is presenting legal ID documentation, like they can with verifying a Social Security number.



That's the whole problem in a nutshell. The system is broken and the Feds don't really know how to fix it. You cannot blame it all on the employers who are hiring these illegal aliens because they are given easily forged documents and no way to distinguish if they are real or not. Even if they are real, they may be their brothers or sisters green card and most employers would not know the difference. Probably a half dozen or more illegals can be using the same real or forged ID and how is the employer supposed to know?



Yes, we can fine employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, but you cannot prove that they really knew the guy they hired was illegal. And if the illegal alien no longer works for the company, how is the government going to prove which Jose Alverado worked there and whether his documents were real or forged.



While it is true that Americans are not required to carry ID, it has become so necessary for almost everything we do in life that we must have ID. Why not just make it a law that says every American over the age of 17 must carry an ID card?



Oddly enough, I applied for a Passport about this time last year and took my application, birthcertificate and photos to the Post Office and was amazed that they would not accept my government issued Military ID card as legal ID??? They wanted my Texas Drivers License....the same document forged by many illegal aliens. The system is broke and we need to look at different approaches that will fix this problem once and for all.



But again, this whole issue is only because some people feel they will be singled out to show ID because of Racial Profiling. With an estimated 12 Million illegal aliens in the US they don't need a lot of support from Liberal Americans. If this goes on unchecked their will be more illegals than true Americans. Remember that children of illegal aliens born in the US are considered American citizens too. Why not just tear down the border and change the name of our country to The United States of Mexico.



...Rich

 

[Jose Santana]

I think it comes down to basically telling cops it's ok to racial profile. Lets face it folks brown hispanics will be stopped all the time, that is why it is ok with most of you here. Doesn't affect most of you so no big deal, but it is to me as I am a brown skinned hispanic/native american, when i travel to AZ I will probably be stopped and searched for no good reason which is BS. Also I can see the arrests of minorities going through the roof as any small infraction will be used to justify the searching and all of a sudden we can point fingers at the minorities for being hoodlums or whatever. I am sure if you randomly stop people anywhere you will be bound to get more arrests for whatever but it will not be whites who are affected here. I wonder what the breakdown is of European illegals in this country is. What states hold the most of them. If these laws are enacted in those states or say here is MA, will they be turning Southie over or perhaps the Northend of boston looking for Irish or italian illegals? I don't think so, which is sort of the point, this law has racial overtones all over it and to deny it is just being ignorant. but most of you don't really care. Even though there is an easier and better solution, like TJR said why don't we simply penalize the businesses that hire Illegals, tis would be relatively easy to do and it would take away the incentive for them to come? Makes too much sense I suppose. I also wonder about the process in place to come here legally and make a better life... Does a 6-7 or 10 year waiting period sound reasonable to you? How about a father trying to work for feeding his family can we realistically wait 6 years? It's funny because i hear most of these tea party folks and ultra conservatives speak out of both sides of thier mouths... It's either they come here and mooch off the system or they come here and work for peanuts... Which is it? One way or the other they just can't win...



joseymack

 

[LoriMaury Kimbrough]

I typically don't jump into to these conversations, but being that I live in AZ and have to live with the problems that illegal immigration has caused (and cost) our state alone, I feel like I have to.



First, the law says that race cannot be the primary reason for the request for identification. It has to be secondary. Do I believe that will always be the case, no I really don't. But so what? I do believe that it will be the exception and not the rule. Like many public safety agencies, they are too busy responding to other (sometimes stupid) calls to stop the random individual to harass them for identification. I was walking down the street with my daughter when an officer pulled up, pulled my daughter aside and started asking her questions. When I tried to butt in, I was told to step back. When it was all said and done, my daughter matched the description of a runaway.



I also wish people would remember that you can be any color of the rainbow and not be in the Country legally.



Finally, I have to comment on the racist tea party comment. You couldn't be more off base. I attended the tea part event last month in Search Light, NV. There seemed to be a representative of every race in attendance. It was great to see and I'll admit that I went to the event wondering if that would be the case. There was a crap-load of people there and I didn't hear a single racist comment. What I heard the most of was people just really tired of having their freedoms taken away and feeling like the Country was headed in the wrong direction. There was lots of people, like myself, who have never really been politically active until the last couple of years. There were complete strangers talking to one another and if their view points didn't completely agree, they didn't get rude or start yelling, they basically just agreed to disagree, which is exactly how it should be. We should act like the adults that we are and if we disagree with someone, don't start calling people names or make outrageous statements. After all, in my mind, when you do that you are just taking legitimacy away from your point of view because you are not presenting yourself as an adult, but more like a bully on a playground.



As far as Texas passing a similar law, I hope they do. Especially since I read that Fort Worth is considered a "safe haven city". While I live in AZ, I was born and raised in Texas and will always consider myself a Texan so I would love to see "home" have a similar law.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh said:

The detention law is already in effect. Has been for a long time. I'm not sure why you assume the Arizona law will increase its use. I think police departments are wise enough to know that it would be very ineffective to set up sidewalk blocks and check for citizenship. Police already could ask for your citizenship, anyway. It's not really an overhaul of legislation or anything. Its goal, though (besides the grand scheme, which I'll mention below), is to get police to regularly add one more question to their routine.

I don't assume that the Arizona bill will increase the use of the detention laws. If a LEO has a reason to stop and to question someone (aka "detain them") then they can do that today, with our without the bill. So why the bill?



Police can already ask for citizenship, but ONLY if they have some other reason to stop you. From what I am seeing, this bill changes that. Their reason is essentially that they suspect you might be an illegal.



It would be as if a state or city passed a new "shoplifting" law that would allow LEO to stop anyone on the street and demand to see the receipts for everything that you are carrying on your person (clothes, ipod, cellphone, etc), and only need a "reasonable suspect" you stole it. Again, unless they SAW you steal something, I counter that there is no reasonable suspicion of theft.



Being brown and speaking spanish, or driving 6 to a car while being brown will be "reasonable suspicion", I fear.



Civil rights will be infringed the first time a citizen is walking down the street and is asked to show his or her papers. That's the part that people don't get here. This is precendent setting and people don't even seem to appreciate it.



BTW, joseymack gets it and understands the issue, and sadly probably only because of the color of his skin. Those here that support this bill are short-sighted, IMHO.



For me, it's not even about racial profiling. For me, the issue is that citizens like Josey will be carded for no good reason, and if forced to identify himself that is unconstitutional. This will be struck down by the SCOTUS. No one has shown me any reason why it shouldn't or shown any similar laws/bills that allow for forced stop and identification in the consensual case.



TJR

 

[Jose Santana]

Kimbros wrote:

First, the law says that race cannot be the primary reason for the request for identification. It has to be secondary. Do I believe that will always be the case, no I really don't. But so what? I do believe that it will be the exception and not the rule

But so what????? That says alot about you Kimbros... So what if a few people are affected it's not me so it's ok?



I think if we were telling some of you from now on we can stop and search you for no reason this would be a whole different conversation about government intrusion, and constitutional rights...

 

[Les]

This country has no balls anymore, this law will go away...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Josey,



Ben Franklin said it best:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les said:

This country has no balls anymore, this law will go away...

From my point-of-view, if this country still has the balls and convictions of its founding fathers then this bill and others like it will be struck down.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

A very simply way around the racial profiling is to have the cop just talk to the person about anything like...The weather, Baseball, hows the family? etc. If the person does not speak any english, that may be suspicious. If the person refuses to answer, that could be suspeicious, etc. Those are all things that the Israeli Security forces use to screen people. That's a technique that has been proposed for use by our Airport Security.



I agree that some illegal aliens speak english very well, but most do not. There are also many citizens that do not speak english well, so it would not be based solely on how well they spoke english, but their reaction to talking to a police officer. US citizens would not be afraid to causually talk to a police officer about weather or sports, etc provided they did not have any outstanding warrants. If they act nervous or suspicious, that may be grounds to check their ID and see if they are wanted. That's basicly what they do when the stop you for a traffic violation. If you act overly nervous or your story does not make sense they check a little deeper.



It's not perfect but it can be done and most people would not even know they were being checked for suspicion of being an illegal alien.



Yes, I'm sure that more brown skinned latino looking people will be given the once over but if they have notheing to hide, then it will just be a friendly chat and they will be on their way. There will be abuses by some police officers and those can be delt with on a case by case basis as they are now.



We can all argue that our rights have been eroding over the years, but also, times have changed and security within our country has been slowly but severely compromised over the past 50 years. I don't think we have 50 years to correct the problem...It is something that has to be done now, and it has to be done quickly. If that steps on a few toes, then all I can say is, "Excuse me", and move on on to the next suspect.



There is nothing in the Consitution that says we have the right to Life, Liberty and the persuite of happyness With no Identification checks required. Almost everything we do requires some form of ID checking, Many of our jobs require special ID cards from our employers, Your drivers license is your ID, we now have to have a passport to enter and exit Canada and Mexico now, and I see it as only getting worse.



When the Border Patrol finds a group of hispanics in the middle of the desert close the the US-Mexican border, are they just sopposed to assume they are American citizens camping out? It's not illegal to be in the desert, so why should the Border Patrol care. No, they stop them ask them questions and ask for ID to confirm who they are and their status.



I think we are arguing about political correctness and not Constitutional rights.



...Rich







How do you propose we find all the illegal aliens, remove them from out country and be able to keep them out...when the first task is to just FIND THEM.