Texas considering similar immigration law

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL said:

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.

You don't see a problem with that? I certainly do. So, I'm brown skinned and in a hurry and an officer wants to "chit-chat" with me. WTF! Seriously, this isn't Israel. We don't live in a hostile country where people just across the border and within the border want to kill us (for the most part). As for security screening...again, that's fine. Do whatever you want with security checkpoints and screening at airports. I can choose to fly or not. Flying isn't a right.



Walking down the street, unharrassed, to me, is still an expectation that I have, and that I would want all people in this fine country to have.



RichardL also said:

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.

Nor does our constitution explicitly call for the seperation of church and state, but we have laws and there have been lawsuits that uphold that interpretation that most claim is rooted in the Constitution.



But make no mistake, laws have been enacted that protect people from unwarranted "stop and identification." Did you read the Wiki article I posted? Did you look at all the legal precedent references at the bottom?

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.

A job, driving, traveling to and from foreign countries (or into this country) are all priveleges...not rights.



We have the right to our privacy, we have a right not to be stopped and detained by law enforcement without some due cause.



Laws like these erode those liberties.



I don't know how I can state it any more clearly.



Driving: Requires identification and is a privelege.



Working: Requires that one pays taxes, and is also a privelege and might otherwise require security credentials; all of which require identification.



Traveling to this country or to other countries: A privelege that for security and tracking purposes requires identification.



Citizen walking down the street, minding your own business, doing nothing wrong: No identification required. LOE cannot coerce people in that circumstance to identify themselves. There are laws on the books in most states that state just that. The Arizona bill thumbs its nose at such laws, laws that are based on the liberties of the citizens of this fine land.



P.S. The reason I know so much about this is I had a cousin who got stopped leaving a store by a store security guard. Seems he triggered the anti-theft system. They wanted to check his bag and see his receipt. He had paid for the items properly, he had his receipt, but the clerk didn't correctly deactivate the anti-theft system. I know it's happened to all of us, right.



Well, the security guard was a big dick about it, and my cousin simply said to him: "I paid for this stuff. Just ask the cashier.", and he continued to walk out the door. This was all happening in the parking lot of a mall, btw. Anyway, the security guard radioed local police and tried to detain my cousin because he wouldn't show the receipt. Long story short, neither the security guard nor the police had any right to look in my cousins bag, to detain him, or to ask for identification because they didn't have probable cause. The security guard tried to get my cousin to let him look in the bag, and to see the receipt. He tried to get his name. The policeman that showed up tried to get his name, too. My cousin simply repeated: "I paid for this stuff. Unless you saw me put something in my bag without paying for it you should let me go." Longer story hopefully shorter; my cousin was pre-law at the time and he found an attorney to sue the store and the local police department for unwarranted detainment (or something like that), harrassment, etc. He dropped the case when the cop and the security guard provided formal, written apologies. All he wanted was for them to awknowledge that they overstepped their respective authority. Because some a-hole clerk doesn't do there job doesn't mean that LEOs have a right to detain you or ask who you are. It's pretty clear these days that entrance-side anti-theft alarms going off clearly aren't probable cause...they go off more because clerks not doing their jobs than because of theft.



True story.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L asks:

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.

Some other way. Not like Arizona is proposing. All that their law will do is make the illegals move somewhere more "friendly" to them.



I disagree that the first task in solving the illegal alien problem to first FIND the illegals here.



If your house is filled with flies do you first grab the flyswatter, or do you close the open door or window?



If you have fruit flies, do you swat endlessly at the tiny flies, or do you first find the rotting fruit that is attracting them?



Close the borders...truly close the borders, and crack down on the businesses that hire illegals (those are our open doors/windows, and rotting, attractive fruit).



If you did that, THEN, the next step would be to get a handle on the illegals already here.



The truth is that our country doesn't really want to close our borders and punish those that hire illegals. That's my opinion on the matter, and if I am right, unless that changes, laws like this will just have us swatting at flies, with doors wide open and rotting fruit all over the place.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

Feds already bounced your 4th admenment rights. Backed up by fedral courts.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Eddie,



I just read the link.



That is not new news, and not a rights violation, IMHO. Ever since the first wireless data transmissions were made the laws have stated that ANYTHING sent OTA (over the air) can be received by anyone and used for purposes which are their own. John Q Public should already know that if they send data over their smartphone or send something over any medium, wirelessly, it can be listened to by just about anyone.



Cellphone eavesdropping is a little different, however, as that does fall under wiretapping statutes, and those were put in place to protect privacy.



It's a brave new wireless data world and the old laws simply don't apply.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

TJR, I know this is not news, but. This is infringment on your personal documents without cause. Not what is on the net or air. Your personal docs on your harddrive or usb drive etc. May it be just a letter of resume or letter to your mother. Dont presume you intend to electronic mail it.



I have read on some other sites. That some US citizens have had their personal data, in the hands of the feds for 6months or longer. It was awhile back. But the article started off with the facts, that. One women almost didnt her laptop back. The feds acknoledged it was in their possion, over a year. She was one of the first of consifications. This woman only went on vacation, to England. She was not a bussiness person. Only a wife and mother. IMO even an owner of a private US company has the right to his product secrets. So he happens to get an encypted drive taken from him. Not right.



IMO, you evaded the issue. If the feds had any right to anything. In your opinion it would only be web sites visited and email. That was OTA.



In my own computer I have Docs I have created for personal use only. Not to be emailed or put on the net. Those are none of the governments bussiness. I have things stored on external devices, also. That data is no ones to read but me. If the feds have the right to take it from me at or near the border, and hold until they see fit. In the name of homeland security. They are going to get the right to ID people. Like it or not.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Eddie,



Unless I missed something in the article I didn't evade the issue. It is illegal and no federal agency has the right to tap into your electronic device. So, your personal docs on your hard drive or a USB drive are secure. However, if you transmit that data wireless over an unsecured channel, then the government or any other party can intercept and review the data crossing the ether. Also, if you want to go through customs with a digital device that holds data, then make no mistake, the government or the security screening agency COULD review your data and otherwise confiscate your device. Traveling is a privelege, not a right.



If you have issue with this, send your gadgets securely through FedEx...problem solved. Not ideal, but again, no news here, IMHO.



Also, I'm pretty well versed in encryption standards and related international laws. If you have something DES encrypted, be careful. That's defense-level encryption and your ability to transfer products that have DES encrypted data to/from foreign countries is GREATLY safeguarded. This has been going on for 20 or 30 years, if NOT more.



Again, nothing new here. Maybe you are just hearing about it for the first time.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

You did watch the whole video, yes..or just the subject line...?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Eddie,



I read the subject line, watched the video up until the point it turned into a commercial for Carbonite online backup then got disgusted a little by the fact that the reporter was the same person hawking the product, and the report had to do with sensitivity of data, and the report was selling a data backup service. That's where "fair and balanced" seem to end for me and I stopped watching.



Also, taking my tech news from someone called "America's Digital Goddess" seems like not the most authoritative source. ;-)



But I did just watch the whole thing, watching even past the commercial.



Still no news here. Security screening at an airport DOES NOT require a warrant, and there is and should be no expectation of privacy regarding any and all things you carry with you on on your person while traveling. This goes for digital materials as well. If willing to read the rest of this I will make it pretty clear as to why.



Why we consider these new laws or new rulings that uphold this, I don't understand. I guess it's just because of the new technology. 30 years ago, I might be asked to open my briefcase for a review of its contents as I board a plane or go through customs. Within that briefcase might be very personal, sensitive, incriminating things I might not want someone to see. Solution: Don't put that sensitve, incriminating crap in your briefcase when traveling. Today, enter the laptop, smartphone, iPod or iPad. These are simply a digital briefcase. The technology has changed how things are carried, but it hasn't changed the laws with regards to what the agents can look at, and the fact that they don't need a warrant to do so.



Not new news.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I don't think a flyswatter will do much good against the 12 Million illegal aliens in this country now. I agree that securing the border is the first step, but that is as difficult as swatting the 12 million flies, and ti will take a long long time to get the thousoands of miles of US borders and coastlines secured, if it can even be done at all.



I think the best deterent is to make the USA unhospitable to illegal aliens, even if that may inconvenience a few American citizens.



If I had a house full of flies I would use a very broad range spray/fogger to knock down the ones that existed and continue the crackdown. If the aliens see that they even if they can slip accross the border undetected, they will be caught, procecuted and jailed under very harsh conditions, the punishment should be so severe that they find life in Mexico preferable to living in the US on the run as an illegal alien.



The only solution to the 12 million illegal aliens in this country is to offer them some form of probation (not amensity), where they can turn themselves in, plead guilty to entrying the country illegally and apply for citizenship by some deadline. The courts till place them on a 5 year probation where they must be fingerprinted, ID'd, etc as well as they must work, pay taxes, learn basic English, and not be involved in anything illegal. After 5 years they can be granted citizenship if they can pass the required tests. During the probationary period, they are requried to report where they are living and where they are working every few months and it the move or change jobs, they must report that immediately. Also, Employers of the probationary aliens will be required to report who they hired. This will all be cross check in a government database to insure that multiple people are not sharing the same ID.



Those illegal aliens that fail to turn themselves in accept the probation offer or who are caught after the deadline date, will be tracked down, arrested and jailed for a minimum of 5 years and then deported.



If at anytime during their probationary 5 years, they are convicted of any crimes, the manditory 5 years sentence for illegally entering this country will be added onto what ever sentence they get for the other crime/s.



I think it is totally unrealistic that we can track down 12 million illegal aliens in this country. We have to compromise by letting them turn themselves in, accept a plea bargain that would allow them to remain here legally as long as they are willing to be productive, tax paying citizens.



...Rich

 

[Jose Santana]

I think the best deterent is to make the USA unhospitable to illegal aliens, even if that may inconvenience a few American citizens.

Correction, inconvenience tan skinned folks.... So a little infringement on your rights is ok, no big deal.....? Maybe we should also start random searches of all blacks who live i the ghetto's , or better yet why don't we just give all the minoroities a card they need to have at ALL times this would surely get us some busts in the name of justice.



What is the criteria for Europeans to enter this country,,,, or is this not a problem? I pose this as a serious question. What do the numbers look like for Europeans? I would venture to guess that noone knows. I still pose the question are we going to be as aggressive in states where Europeans are the majority of illegals, or are we assuming all the Irish, French, Italian, Russian, Polish, Serbians ect ect are here legally?



Remember folks the terrorist came through Canada, and also remember the Hispanic culture in the southwest ,which seems to be the real essence of this law, is alive and well down there. They too deserve the right to come and make a decent liviing in this country just as your forefathers did. as long as they are working while they are here what's the harm. none of this 5,6,10 year waiting crap. Obviously the jobs are there. No welfare just work. And it should be taxed...

 

[EddieS'04]

Europeans are the majority of illegals,

give some stats of proof. That is not what the liberal media says, about illegals.





So jose, I hear you but. You think someones skin color and the fact they came illegally. Should put them to the front of the line. There are europeans and hispanics that have followed the law. They applied for work visa's or citizenship. Some of them are still waiting, some waited 5,6,10 years. When did where anyone come from, put a person above the laws of imigration.



So this happens to be an issue in the southwest. Law is law. Many times when a cop radars a group of speeding cars. They pull one over. When you ask about the other 3 cars. The cop says I got you. Broke the law. Been there.



Call me racist, but Im not. This is not about race.

BTW, 63% of pheonix police are hispanic. Dont worry..





TJR, whatever,, let them read your personal mail and take your laptop. You are backflushing on your original response to 4th admendment rights.

You zig zag too much for me. When the situation gets worse in the name of homeland security, well..the nazi's are already here..you will have to choose a side other than PC. Or you really dont stand for anything.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Eddie says:

TJR, whatever,, let them read your personal mail and take your laptop. You are backflushing on your original response to 4th admendment rights.

You zig zag too much for me. When the situation gets worse in the name of homeland security, well..the nazi's are already here..you will have to choose a side other than PC. Or you really dont stand for anything.

When people say "whatever" the debate rarely continues productively, but I'll try replying anyways.



I'm not backflushing, or backpeddling, or whatever you want to call it on anything. I'm not the only one saying that the Arizona Immigration bill violates the 4th ammendment (see link). As for your example, I'd tend to agree that what you are describing with airport security would be a violation of 4th amendment rights, IF it were the same as thing as the Arizona scenario.



As I said, the airport screening thing is nothing new. Traveling on a plane, or abroad is a PRIVELEGE that is granted according to security rules and regulations. These searches are not new. The briefcase example I gave is hardly a "whatever!". Compare and contrast that to walking down the street and NOT having to identify yourself for no good reason. That is a RIGHT...a right that has been held up in court, and is rooted in the 4th amendment.



Eddie, clearly you think my logic is warped. I think you belief it is warped because I see the Arizona law as potentially violating 4th amendment rights, but I don't see the airport security thing as doing the same. Well, to that I say, consider gun rights. A person has the right based on the 2nd amendment to keep and carry a gun. However, that same person can't take that gun on a plane or through airport security. Is that a violation of the 2nd amendment? Clearly by today's laws it is not. I think it comes down to the right vs privelege thing again (having a gun, a right; having a gun and being able to take it on a plane...a violation of the terms of the privelege of being on a plane).



I'm not picking the PC side. I'm the least PC guy you'll probably ever meet. I just won't trade liberties for convenience. I won't trade the liberties of "brown skinned" citizens of Arizona for a bill that might be able to round up some illegals. I just won't do it, no more than I would support a bill that makes everyone wear name takes in public that show proof of "non-sex offender status" in hopes to be able to better keep track of sex offenders. That would be an analogous, fictitious law in my opinion. Would you support such a law?



P.S. I live in an area of the country where the illegal immigration problem isn't that bad. I wonder if I would feel differently if I lived in LA, or Texas, or Arizona. I might. I admit I might. But I have the luxury of an opinion on this subject not biased by the perceived issues that illegals bring.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

The reality of the situation is that the Arizona law is NOT illegal or un-Constitutional. The question is How will the police use that law without infringing on someones Constitutional rights. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that the Police have been given the stamp of approval for Racial ProfilingThat is NOT true and Not the case!



It is perfectly legal for a police officer to stop and interview a person if they feel a crime has been committed.That goes on everyday in every state and the Arizona law is no different.



Will there be some Racial Profiling when police try to enforce this lawYes, you can bet on that. However that happens now, and this law does allow or prevent Racial Profiling. The police officer must still have at least some legal suspicion that the person is an illegal alien. This law does not mean that police can stop every Latino looking person and check their ID.The must me a reasonable suspicion that the person is in this country illegally.



I personally think most police will be overly cautious to not provoke a Racial Profiling incident and error on the side of caution. Nobody but the very obvious illegal aliens (those observed climbing over or under the fence at the border) or perhaps just being out in the desert too close to the US/Mexico border will be stopped and questioned, or those stopped for other violations as is the case now.



Im sure the police in Arizona will come up with a strategy to enforce this law without stooping to Racial Profiling. Since the majority of law enforcement officers in Arizona are Hispanic, they would probably have a much better feeling about someone who might be an illegal alien, and be able to identify some subtle behavior patterns that would send up a red flag, those kinds of signs that a non-Hispanic would never pick up on.



Everybody is protesting this law as being unconstitutional and yet nobodys rights have been violated yet! NO it does not mean the police can read your emails, confiscate your computer, or ease-drop on your telephone conversations without probably cause and/or a court order.



Yes, there will be some violations, but It does not open up Pandoras box to a flood of 4th Amendment violations. I think the Arizona police will adopts some very stringent rules to prevent any officer from abusing the law. They may already have a legal strategy and guildlines that police officers will have to follow so that they can prove they had reasonable suspicion that the individual was an illegal alien.



Some mistakes will be made by individual police officer, however with time, people will see that his law is not a threat to their 4th Amendment rights .But you cant criticize a law only because YOU assume there will be abuses by the police. Every law is subject to abuse, but that is solely the act of individual police officers.



The law is not bad, and the proper enforcement can make it a very good law.



Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL said

The reality of the situation is that the Arizona law is NOT illegal or un-Constitutional. The question is How will the police use that law without infringing on someones Constitutional rights. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that the Police have been given the stamp of approval for Racial ProfilingThat is NOT true and Not the case!

The bill and the law, as written cannot be enforced, IMHO, without potentially (and moreso, probably) trampling on the 4th amendment rights of citizens.



Richard L said:

It is perfectly legal for a police officer to stop and interview a person if they feel a crime has been committed.That goes on everyday in every state and the Arizona law is no different.

Yes, it is perfectly legal for a policeman to stop and question someone. If the person in question is not being detained (no probable cause), then it is a consensual stop, and the person DOES NOT need to identify themselves. So is the law in most every state, and the root of such statutes is the 4th amendment.



I have absolutely NO issue with the Arizona bill if it specifically states that people can only be asked for their proof of legal status if stopped for some other issue, OR if the bill CLEARLY defines probable cause for stopping someone suspected of being illegal.



In the absence of such changes to the bill, I see no way that it can get enforced without rights violations.



Richard L said:

Yes, there will be some violations,...

Then let's fix the bill and its law before it gets out there as I described and avoid as many violations as possible.



Richard L said:

But you cant criticize a law only because YOU assume there will be abuses by the police

I don't assume. Just the contrary. Given no specific definition of what constitutes probable cause for assuming someone is illegal then there is no criteria from which to ASSUME most stops (any stops) would be warranted and legal.



Link the stop to some other infraction or cause, or clearly define what probable cause is for being suspected an illegal and the bill is FINE by me.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I'm sure they will link the stop and requesting of an ID to another infraction, since that is how most criminals and wanted people are apprehended. There is no law that says Police can stop someone for a minor traffic offese and check for outstanding warrants because they can legally do that.



The 4th Amendment is still in effect and clearifying that in the Arizona law is not required. The Arizona law does not superseed the 4th Amendment.



How the law is enforced without violating the 4th Amendment is a problem for the police.

I don't think it will be enforced in the manner thay most critics think the law implies...ie: stoping every Hispanic person and asking for their proof they are in this country legally. There will need to be some other evidence or behaviour that will lead the police to feel that the individual is involved in something illegal.



If a police officer spots a group of people hiding in the desert near the US/Mexican border, that could be deemed as suspicious behaviour and the officer is justified in thinking that these people have crossed the border illegally. That is very different than an officer seeing a group of people walking down the sidewalk in downtown Phoenix, AZ. Simply walking down the street is not probable cause.

Given no specific definition of what constitutes probable cause for assuming someone is illegal then there is no criteria from which to ASSUME most stops (any stops) would be warranted and legal.

Laws only state the rules or infractions, not how the law will be enforced by the police. That is a police matter. The police are aware that they must respect the suspects constitutional rights for any law and when they don't the charges are dropped and the office is repremanded. All of those decisions are made by the courts not by the police department and not by the public. How the police will prove reasonable suspicion that a person has entered this country illegally is something that the police and the Arizona State Attorney General will have to figure out.



I think the law is clear that the officer must reasonably suspect someone is an illegal alien, which would severly limit the circumstances where they would have legal and justifyable probably cause.



I think hiding in the desert near the US/Mexico border would be probably cause, but I'm sure the police experienced in patroling the states near the border would notice other suspicious behaviour that would provide reasonable cause to stop that person.



Your fear that the law will not be enforcable really does not matter. There are many laws in nearly all states that are very difficult to enforce, but still remain on the books.



The courts will ultimately decide if a person's constitutional rights have been violated. Not you, and not me.



...Rich

 

[Willie Anglin]

Illegal entry into this country is wrong, WTBS, I believe racial profiling is wrong also. Our gubment is just ignoring a issue that has started to boil peoples blood as much as abortion and other social hot button issues. I am lily white and my son is half native and pretty dark. He has been stopped and questioned several times for no reason. He is a good young man, never ever even drank a beer, no drugs, nothing illegal, yet he gets stopped for no reason, to me this is not right. If the US of A would do something about protecting our borders this would not be an issue. WTBS, I have no ideal what it is like living in a crime ridden area like some of our fellow citizens are living in on the Mexico border. Something needs to be done and that my friends is the issue, people are being killed, kidnapped, harassed, threatened and gubment is not stepping in. In times like this is when vigilantes start to multiply. If the people who are supposed to protect you shirk their duty then you have to protect yourself. Too many professional politicians are looking to gain a vote so here we are in this situation.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L said:

Your fear that the law will not be enforceable really does not matter. There are many laws in nearly all states that are very difficult to enforce, but still remain on the books.



The courts will ultimately decide if a person's constitutional rights have been violated. Not you, and not me

Respectfully, how about we agree on a couple of things, Richard? The agreement doesn't require debate, IMHO. I don't think these things are really up for debate as much as I think these are common courtesies people should extend to one another.



Okay, the two things are:



1. How about you let me consider what fears matter to me.



2. Likewise, why not let me have my concerns about potential erosion in constitutional rights as clearly these concerns are rationally shared by many. I don't think it is unreasonable for me to hold those concerns, voice them, and not simply wait until future decisions by the court before I worry about this issue.



Telling me my fears don't matter, and telling me that my concerns are moot as this issue will be handled by the courts really comes off as condescending and unempowering. I take a little offense with that. One person CAN make a difference. The concerns and fears of everyone should be heard and considered.



Still, it could be all cleared up if "reasonable suspicion" were defined more properly and/or these stop and indentifications were linked to some other detainable offense. Both or either of these, done formally, would help to satisfy the civil libertarian concerns (definately mine).



Without such formalities, expect more laws, more statutes, and lots of legal action as LEO and people try to meander through the use of this bill. You and I have already agreed to such issues down the road. Let's spend a few more weeks and get the bill with more teeth and meat to it.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I'm sorry if I came off as condescending, that was not my intent.



This new Arizon law is not the first or only law that appears to leave "Probable Cause" to the eyes of the police officer. When these situatuions arise, they are handled in court and not the court of public opinion.



The 4th Amendment still stands and the police will be required to follow it. No special language needs to be added to the Arizona Law to make it clearer to anyone. When in doubt, most good police officers will uphold the suspects rights.



My argument is that you and everyone else seems to be going off the deep end about the Arizona Law because it does not describe exactly how a police officer will determine who is an illegal alien. Most laws do not describe police tactics, or how police can be alerted to suspicious activity. If the police describe all of their techniques, the criminals would just avoid those behaviours that police find suspicious.



If you were a police officer in any state, whould you be suspicious if you saw someone duck behind a building or hide behind a tree when you drove by? They have not broken any laws, or did anything wrong, but their behaviour would make me suspicious that they don't want me to see them for some reason. Are they illegal aliens, or wanted felons, perhaps. Is that grouds for stoping and requesting ID from that person, and even asking why they were trying to avoid the poilce? I think so, and I don't think their rights are being violated regardless of their skin color or nationality?



I agree that the govenrment should have had better control of our borders, but then we never had the kinds of threats or volume of illegal entriies into this country. Now they are in panic mode to correct the issues they created. The border states are feeling thie brunt of the financial burden being place on them by the illegal aliens.



Most states do not look at illegal aliens as a racial problem, but as a severe economic problem. It spills over to law enforcement when the poverty of the illegal aliens leads to crime. Whenever someone wants tighter border security, or more arrest of illegal aliens, they are branded as racist...which is not the case



I am for allowing all the existing illegal aliens stay in this country and let them be counted and identified. Just closing the borders does not solve the problem of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens already living in this country and overtasking our healthcare, and welfare systems. If they are honest hard working people, then let them register with the INS, work, pay taxes and be a contributing part to our society not a burden to it.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Thanks Richard.



I don't have an issue with racial profiling BTW if used along with other criteria to create some reasonable suspicion of an illegal. I just pray that skin color is not the only criteria.



I simply don't see how this law can be enforced as-is without the stop and identification of some citizens who otherwise have no reason to be stopped and questioned.



Some above have said "so what" to that possibility, as if the ends justify the means. If this worst-case happens, and it seems likely on occassion to happen, I don't think it is justified.

TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I simply don't see how this law can be enforced as-is without the stop and identification of some citizens who otherwise have no reason to be stopped and questioned.

That appears that everyone who is opposed to the Arizona Law thinks the only way to enforce the law is to arbitrarily stop citizens walking down the street and ask for ID and question them, and that the police will target Hispanic looking people. That implies that the police will have no choice but to willfully violate the 4tth Amendment. I think that is a huge leap to make.



The only difference in this new Arizona law is that the suspect does not have to be suspected of violating any law or ordinance to be stopped. You may feel uncomfortable with police being able to make decisions as to whether anyone appears suspicous enough to be stopped. If you lived in Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona you would understand that the police in these states know how to spot illegal aliens but were powerless to do anything. This new law will allow them to take action to stop making this country a safe heaven to illegal aliens.



I think the majority of Arizona citizens, as well as citizens of Texas and New Mexico are in favor of this law. Those who oppose are a few bleeding heart liberals and Hispanics who fear they will be stopped by the police for no reason.



To my knowledge, nobody has been stopped yet under this law, so I think it's premature to want the law banned because some perceive that law is either unconstitutional or cannot be enforced.



...Rich