Immigration bill is very dangerous

imported post

marshaul wrote:
As opposed to the interests of construction companies who stand to benefit from the construction of a giant fence, which would cost as much to maintain as any other solution (except all the maintenance dollars go to back to the construction sector instead of elsewhere) due to the fact that, without constant patrolling, such a fence will be easily spot-demolished wherever a border crossing is otherwise convenient. To say nothing about its utter inefficacy against smuggling which occurs A: through tunnels B: across border checkpoints thanks to corruption (still exists, you know) or the plain chance of being undetected, and C: smuggling across water routes.

A fence will not change the fundamental market force which is driving immigration. All it will do is move migrants around the fence (they don't bother for now because it remains the most convenient), or encourage them to bring inexpensive supplies sufficient to demolish the fence enough to enable the easy surmounting of the remaining concrete structure.

Seriously, government can't beat markets. It's virtually impossible. There is more money (thus incentive) in markets than ever will be wielded by government, since government wealth must necessarily be a subset of total wealth, as government cannot create wealth and must instead appropriate it.




I can tell that you know little about the engineering and construction business. But that aside. You are right, we will not stop ALL illegals or ALL smuggling....but a properly designed fence would stop 95 % of overland routes. Air and water routes are used now, as are tunnels but the majority is overland traffic. Does it not make sense to shut that down as much as possiable?

I do not disagree with your market driven immigration. We need to place fines and jail time for employers that hire illegals.


Steve

imported post

In Nevada and other states, a person is required by law to properly identify themselves. In my case, my name is sufficient. Subsequent investigation by LE would verify that I am not an illegal. Presentation of "papers" is not required.
An illegal alien will also be required by law to properly identify themselves. Giving a true name is sufficient. Subsequent investigation by LE would verify that they are NOT a lawful citizen, and thus they will be required by law to proffer paperwork which allows them to lawfully remain within our borders.

Click to expand...

No, read the law. It requires that immigrants produce documents. Failure to produce documents is a misdemeanor, and it becomes a felony if the suspect is armed. Do you really think that all it will take is saying "I'm Iowa Farmboy from Linn County, Iowa" and the police will leave me alone? If that is all it will take then the illegal aliens will just make up a name and address on the spot, the police will then, of course, just let them go.

Suspicion of being an illegal alien is now a primary enforcement offense. If a person was not in the act of committing an overt crime they can still be stopped and asked to produce papers. An illegal alien carrying a weapon always was a felony, only now the police can stop a person under suspicion of doing so and ask for papers.

imported post

Cite some case law that shows that it currently is as you allege.

Click to expand...

I posted links to Lawson and Hiibel previously. Perhaps you missed it.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Do you believe that during this time, attempts to verify identity and citizenship will cease?

Click to expand...

No. The state power and authority to verify that law breakers are in this country legally or not is unchanged. What it does is criminalize the act of not carrying papers.
No it does not. Lawful citizens are STILL not required to carry papers. Nothing in the new law specifies such.

Where do you pull this stuff from?
If a person, ANY person cannot subsequently identify themselves, AND have that identity verified as a lawful citizen, then would you not agree that deportation is likely?

Click to expand...

No. If citizenship cannot be verified then there is no place to lawfully deport the suspect.
Deportation is likely. The rest of your "argument" is simply conjecture. Do you have case law to cite that supports your contention or not?
If there is a suspect that does not have ID, has upheld the right to silence, and does not show in any criminal database where do you suggest we deport the person? I don't think Mexico will like it if we start giving them Cuban criminals. Maybe we can send them to Canada?

Click to expand...

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Cite some case law that shows that it currently is as you allege.

Click to expand...

I posted links to Lawson and Hiibel previously. Perhaps you missed it.

Click to expand...

Really? I saw those links. They do not support your claims. How do you feel that they do?

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

New law allows people to travel through Arizona without "papers" while armed.

Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit

A new bill that is on the governors desk could mean EVERYONE needs to carry papers, armed or not.

Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law Draws Strong Opposition

I post this hear because this bill could wipe out any gains made in Arizona on the Second Amendment with the newly enacted constitutional carry law. This "immigration" bill is a blank check to stop anyone for anything. If I go to Arizona while armed and some police officer takes offense to that I could be stopped for looking a little bit too "Canadian". I could then be detained until I prove that I am a citizen, or legitimate visitor, of the USA. I don't typically carry my birth certificate or passport while I travel within the USA but this law might require that I do.

This law is clearly unconstitutional since it is a "guilty until proven innocent" law and is dangerous to our right to arms, our right to travel, our right to assemble, and a whole lot more. This bill should be opposed most vociferously.

Click to expand...

Actually you are required by federal law to carry your passport or I-551 (green card) with you if you are not a US citizen.

Second the office would have to have probably cause to stop you, generally this is done by a traffice stop when you have commited a traffic infraction. The police can not stop you because you look "Canadian" as that is not a crime. They can stop you for speeding, running a red light, not coming to a completion stop at a traffic control device, jay walking, trespassing, etc.

The if during the stop they have probable cause to suspect that you are not in the US legally they can investigate, by contacting ICE, runing the ID you provide, asking you if you are a citizen.

Such things that would give probably cause that you are not legally in the US could be not having a drivers license, having the vehicle registered in Mexico or Canada, have 20 people in the bed of the truck covered by a blanket.

This law allows the office to investigate further, as some cities in Arizona have not allowed police officers to investigate if someone was in the US legally or not.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

In Nevada and other states, a person is required by law to properly identify themselves. In my case, my name is sufficient. Subsequent investigation by LE would verify that I am not an illegal. Presentation of "papers" is not required.
An illegal alien will also be required by law to properly identify themselves. Giving a true name is sufficient. Subsequent investigation by LE would verify that they are NOT a lawful citizen, and thus they will be required by law to proffer paperwork which allows them to lawfully remain within our borders.

Click to expand...

No, read the law. It requires that immigrants produce documents. Failure to produce documents is a misdemeanor, and it becomes a felony if the suspect is armed. Do you really think that all it will take is saying "I'm Iowa Farmboy from Linn County, Iowa" and the police will leave me alone? If that is all it will take then the illegal aliens will just make up a name and address on the spot, the police will then, of course, just let them go.

Suspicion of being an illegal alien is now a primary enforcement offense. If a person was not in the act of committing an overt crime they can still be stopped and asked to produce papers. An illegal alien carrying a weapon always was a felony, only now the police can stop a person under suspicion of doing so and ask for papers.

Click to expand...

Once again you falsely represent my position. You are incorrect. You are required by law in Nevada to properly identify yourself by name. You should perform a little more research into "stop and identify" statutes before you make yourself look even MORE uninformed than you already show.

Nebraska (a close neighbor of Iowa) has a much more draconian "Stop and ID" statute than Nevada:

[size="+1"]Section 29-829
Stop and search of person for dangerous weapon; when authorized; peace officer, defined.
[/size] [size="-1"]A peace officer may stop any person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects of committing, who has committed, or who is about to commit a crime and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions. When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects he is in danger of life or limb, he may search such person for a dangerous weapon. If the peace officer finds such a weapon or any other thing the possession of which may constitute a crime, he may take and keep it until the completion of questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person. For purposes of this section, peace officer shall include credentialed conservation officers of the Game and Parks Commission.[/size]

Click to expand...

[size="-1"]
[/size]

Even that statute does not require papers; and neither does the new AZ statute. Absent suspicion, even giving proper identification by stating your name isn't required.

imported post

No. The state power and authority to verify that law breakers are in this country legally or not is unchanged. What it does is criminalize the act of not carrying papers.

Click to expand...

No it does not. Lawful citizens are STILL not required to carry papers. Nothing in the new law specifies such.

Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference. Do you really think that all it will take is the statement that one is a citizen to get off the hook? Papers will need to be presented or the law is useless. Well, it already is useless but whatever.

No. If citizenship cannot be verified then there is no place to lawfully deport the suspect.

Click to expand...

Deportation is likely. The rest of your "argument" is simply conjecture. Do you have case law to cite that supports your contention or not?

Click to expand...

No case law is required. All one needs to realize is that you cannot send a person to Mexico unless you can prove that person is a citizen of Mexico. If you cannot prove they are a citizen of the country that you sent them to then that country will just send them back. If we cannot establish the suspects citizenship then we can't just pass them off to another country to deal with, that suspect is our problem, not theirs.

Really? I saw those links. They do not support your claims. How do you feel that they do?

Click to expand...

Suspect was asked to produce papers. Suspect did not produce papers. Suspect was arrested under "obstruction of justice" or similar. Case went to court and conviction was over turned. Therefore a person cannot be asked to produce papers for standing on the roadside even if that person is suspected of a crime. Therefore NO ONE can be asked to produce papers.

Depending on state law a law enforcement officer may be able to compel one to state name and address. They cannot ask for identifying documents.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

No. The state power and authority to verify that law breakers are in this country legally or not is unchanged. What it does is criminalize the act of not carrying papers.

Click to expand...

No it does not. Lawful citizens are STILL not required to carry papers. Nothing in the new law specifies such.

Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference. Do you really think that all it will take is the statement that one is a citizen to get off the hook? Papers will need to be presented or the law is useless. Well, it already is useless but whatever.
Point to the post where I have made that claim. You should stick to responding to points actually presented, as opposed to creating strawmen to argue down.

No. If citizenship cannot be verified then there is no place to lawfully deport the suspect.

Click to expand...

Deportation is likely. The rest of your "argument" is simply conjecture. Do you have case law to cite that supports your contention or not?

Click to expand...

No case law is required. All one needs to realize is that you cannot send a person to Mexico unless you can prove that person is a citizen of Mexico. If you cannot prove they are a citizen of the country that you sent them to then that country will just send them back. If we cannot establish the suspects citizenship then we can't just pass them off to another country to deal with, that suspect is our problem, not theirs.
Again with strawmen. Try arguing against a point I actually make, as opposed to ones you create for me.

Really? I saw those links. They do not support your claims. How do you feel that they do?

Click to expand...

Suspect was asked to produce papers. Suspect did not produce papers. Suspect was arrested under "obstruction of justice" or similar. Case went to court and conviction was over turned. Therefore a person cannot be asked to produce papers for standing on the roadside even if that person is suspected of a crime. Therefore NO ONE can be asked to produce papers.
False, at least for Hiibel. Did you actually review the case?
Hiibel refused to give his name. Hiibel was NOT overturned. http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html

Depending on state law a law enforcement officer may be able to compel one to state name and address. They cannot ask for identifying documents.

Click to expand...

Name and address are verifiable, do you agree?


In Kolender v Lawson, the law was deemed unconstitutional as it required no probable cause beyond "walking about at night." Doing such is/was not a crime, but was being used as an enforcement tool by LE to allow stops when a crime was not apparent; removing R.A.S from the equation.

imported post

This law allows the office to investigate further, as some cities in Arizona have not allowed police officers to investigate if someone was in the US legally or not.

Click to expand...

No, this law makes suspicion of being an illegal alien sufficient cause to stop a person. There was nothing prior to this law preventing law enforcement from determining if a suspect was in the USA lawfully or not.

It does make policies on turning a blind eye to illegal entry into the country a civil offense against a law enforcement agency. That is a good thing. Making suspicion of being an illegal alien a primary enforcement offense is a bad thing.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

This law allows the office to investigate further, as some cities in Arizona have not allowed police officers to investigate if someone was in the US legally or not.

Click to expand...

No, this law makes suspicion of being an illegal alien sufficient cause to stop a person. There was nothing prior to this law preventing law enforcement from determining if a suspect was in the USA lawfully or not.

It does make policies on turning a blind eye to illegal entry into the country a civil offense against a law enforcement agency. That is a good thing. Making suspicion of being an illegal alien a primary enforcement offense is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Why?

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

This law allows the office to investigate further, as some cities in Arizona have not allowed police officers to investigate if someone was in the US legally or not.

Click to expand...

No, this law makes suspicion of being an illegal alien sufficient cause to stop a person. There was nothing prior to this law preventing law enforcement from determining if a suspect was in the USA lawfully or not.

It does make policies on turning a blind eye to illegal entry into the country a civil offense against a law enforcement agency. That is a good thing. Making suspicion of being an illegal alien a primary enforcement offense is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

By order of Chief of the City of Phoenix, officers were not permitted to inquire about the status of someone being in the US legally or not. (Operations Order 1.4) If someone was pulled over and they could not produce a operators permit, spoke no English, you could not investigate to see if they were allowed to be in the country legally. You could not contact ICE

Now with this new law the Chief can not prevent the street officers from investigating it if they have probably cause.

imported post

A distinction without a difference. Do you really think that all it will take is the statement that one is a citizen to get off the hook? Papers will need to be presented or the law is useless. Well, it already is useless but whatever.

Click to expand...

Point to the post where I have made that claim. You should stick to responding to points actually presented, as opposed to creating strawmen to argue down.

Click to expand...

I didn't intend that you made that claim just that I fail to see how stating one's name is a verbal "get out of jail free card". The person is still suspected of being in the country illegally. Stating a name is unlikely to change that.

No case law is required. All one needs to realize is that you cannot send a person to Mexico unless you can prove that person is a citizen of Mexico. If you cannot prove they are a citizen of the country that you sent them to then that country will just send them back. If we cannot establish the suspects citizenship then we can't just pass them off to another country to deal with, that suspect is our problem, not theirs.

Click to expand...

Again with strawmen. Try arguing against a point I actually make, as opposed to ones you create for me.

Click to expand...

I am arguing against the point you made. Where do we deport a person if we cannot determine the person's citizenship?

Suspect was asked to produce papers. Suspect did not produce papers. Suspect was arrested under "obstruction of justice" or similar. Case went to court and conviction was over turned. Therefore a person cannot be asked to produce papers for standing on the roadside even if that person is suspected of a crime. Therefore NO ONE can be asked to produce papers.

Click to expand...

False, at least for Hiibel. Did you actually review the case?
Hiibel refused to give his name. Hiibel was NOT overturned.

Click to expand...

My mistake, I got details of Lawson confused with that of Hiibel. Regardless the courts have held that no one can be compelled to produce an identifying document under threat of arrest.

Name and address are verifiable, do you agree?

Click to expand...

Perhaps. An in state citizen can have name and address verified much more quickly than that of someone from another state. Absent the arrest for a crime a person cannot be held until name and address is verified. After a certain amount of time the suspect must be set free. That is part of the problem with this law, a person can be arrested for not producing a document which is in violation of judicial precedent.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

This law allows the office to investigate further, as some cities in Arizona have not allowed police officers to investigate if someone was in the US legally or not.

Click to expand...

No, this law makes suspicion of being an illegal alien sufficient cause to stop a person. There was nothing prior to this law preventing law enforcement from determining if a suspect was in the USA lawfully or not.

It does make policies on turning a blind eye to illegal entry into the country a civil offense against a law enforcement agency. That is a good thing. Making suspicion of being an illegal alien a primary enforcement offense is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Why?

Click to expand...

<sigh>

Because it empowers the law enforcement to arrest a citizen for not producing papers on demand.

imported post

Phoenix David wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

This law allows the office to investigate further, as some cities in Arizona have not allowed police officers to investigate if someone was in the US legally or not.

Click to expand...

No, this law makes suspicion of being an illegal alien sufficient cause to stop a person. There was nothing prior to this law preventing law enforcement from determining if a suspect was in the USA lawfully or not.

It does make policies on turning a blind eye to illegal entry into the country a civil offense against a law enforcement agency. That is a good thing. Making suspicion of being an illegal alien a primary enforcement offense is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

By order of  Chief of the City of Phoenix, officers were not permitted to inquire about the status of someone being in the US legally or not. (Operations Order 1.4)  If I pulled someone over and they could not produce a operators permit, spoke no English, you could not investigate to see if they were allowed to be in the country legally.  You could not contact ICE

Now with this new law the Chief can not prevent the street officers from investigating it if they have probably cause.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a good thing and something I can support. A person that cannot produce a drivers license after being stopped for a traffic violation should be investigated.

imported post

In Kolender v Lawson, the law was deemed unconstitutional as it required no probable cause beyond "walking about at night." Doing such is/was not a crime, but was being used as an enforcement tool by LE to allow stops when a crime was not apparent; removing R.A.S from the equation.

Click to expand...

This law is similarly unconstitutional since a person can be arrested under a felony for suspicion of being an illegal alien carrying a weapon. It permitted doing so under "reasonable suspicion" without defining what was "reasonable". The supporters of this law attempted to assure us that racial profiling will not be used as "reasonable suspicion". If they must be blind to race then what criteria can they use?

Constitutional carry being passed into law is supposed to remove the carrying of weapons as a reasonable suspicion but I have little faith that will happen as well.

It seems the only way a law enforcement agency is to avoid being accused of not upholding the provisions of this law and also not accused of racial profiling they will have to resort to random stops. Being unwilling or unable to produce an identifying document may just be construed as reasonable suspicion. If it is not then all a law enforcement officer can do is stop people to ask for a name and citizenship. That does not sound like an effective immigration enforcement policy to me. It does sound like a violation of our rights though.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Phoenix David wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

This law allows the office to investigate further, as some cities in Arizona have not allowed police officers to investigate if someone was in the US legally or not.

Click to expand...

No, this law makes suspicion of being an illegal alien sufficient cause to stop a person. There was nothing prior to this law preventing law enforcement from determining if a suspect was in the USA lawfully or not.

It does make policies on turning a blind eye to illegal entry into the country a civil offense against a law enforcement agency. That is a good thing. Making suspicion of being an illegal alien a primary enforcement offense is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

By order of Chief of the City of Phoenix, officers were not permitted to inquire about the status of someone being in the US legally or not. (Operations Order 1.4) If I pulled someone over and they could not produce a operators permit, spoke no English, you could not investigate to see if they were allowed to be in the country legally. You could not contact ICE

Now with this new law the Chief can not prevent the street officers from investigating it if they have probably cause.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a good thing and something I can support. A person that cannot produce a drivers license after being stopped for a traffic violation should be investigated.

Click to expand...

Ok we are making progress, there has to be probable cause that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. Now if you can look at someone and tell they are in the country illegally you should come down here get certificated and start making bank.

This law permits the officers to investigate if they have probably cause to suspect that someone is in the US illegally. Since an illegal alien could be white, brown, black, Asian, Indian, Irish, British, Greek, Russian, you can't just look at someone and say "ah he/she is illegal cause he looks like a XXXXX. The would be racial profiling and that is illegal.

But now if for example you fail to stop at a stop light and you are pulled over and because of something other that your physical appearance leads police to believe that you an the country illegally (probable cause)they can investigate that, they could simpley ask you "Are you in the US legally?".

This does not let them just walk up and demand papers. Look at section J of the bill about this.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

A distinction without a difference. Do you really think that all it will take is the statement that one is a citizen to get off the hook? Papers will need to be presented or the law is useless. Well, it already is useless but whatever.

Click to expand...

Point to the post where I have made that claim. You should stick to responding to points actually presented, as opposed to creating strawmen to argue down.

Click to expand...

I didn't intend that you made that claim just that I fail to see how stating one's name is a verbal "get out of jail free card". The person is still suspected of being in the country illegally. Stating a name is unlikely to change that.
Then you have no need to argue against it.
Giving your proper name is the specific that is fairly universal throughout our country, do you at least understand this from a legal and 4th/5th Amendment PoV? Before you discuss further, you DO need a clear understanding of this. It is not a 'get out of jail free,' it is the Law.

No case law is required. All one needs to realize is that you cannot send a person to Mexico unless you can prove that person is a citizen of Mexico. If you cannot prove they are a citizen of the country that you sent them to then that country will just send them back. If we cannot establish the suspects citizenship then we can't just pass them off to another country to deal with, that suspect is our problem, not theirs.

Click to expand...

Again with strawmen. Try arguing against a point I actually make, as opposed to ones you create for me.

Click to expand...

I am arguing against the point you made. Where do we deport a person if we cannot determine the person's citizenship?

Once again, point to the post where I claim what you are arguing against. I did not claim that persons will be deported if we cannot determine citizenship. You have failed to comprehend my post. Again.

Suspect was asked to produce papers. Suspect did not produce papers. Suspect was arrested under "obstruction of justice" or similar. Case went to court and conviction was over turned. Therefore a person cannot be asked to produce papers for standing on the roadside even if that person is suspected of a crime. Therefore NO ONE can be asked to produce papers.

Click to expand...

False, at least for Hiibel. Did you actually review the case?
Hiibel refused to give his name. Hiibel was NOT overturned.

Click to expand...

My mistake, I got details of Lawson confused with that of Hiibel. Regardless the courts have held that no one can be compelled to produce an identifying document under threat of arrest.

Correct. But, they CAN be compelled to provide evidence sufficient to answer an investigation into a specific crime.

Name and address are verifiable, do you agree?

Click to expand...

Perhaps. An in state citizen can have name and address verified much more quickly than that of someone from another state.
Based upon what? What alters the speed with which data can be retrieved?
Absent the arrest for a crime a person cannot be held until name and address is verified. After a certain amount of time the suspect must be set free. That is part of the problem with this law, a person can be arrested for not producing a document which is in violation of judicial precedent.

Click to expand...

No. But, they CAN be arrested for allegedly committing a crime.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

In Kolender v Lawson, the law was deemed unconstitutional as it required no probable cause beyond "walking about at night." Doing such is/was not a crime, but was being used as an enforcement tool by LE to allow stops when a crime was not apparent; removing R.A.S from the equation.

Click to expand...

This law is similarly unconstitutional since a person can be arrested under a felony for suspicion of being an illegal alien carrying a weapon. It permitted doing so under "reasonable suspicion" without defining what was "reasonable". The supporters of this law attempted to assure us that racial profiling will not be used as "reasonable suspicion". If they must be blind to race then what criteria can they use?

Constitutional carry being passed into law is supposed to remove the carrying of weapons as a reasonable suspicion but I have little faith that will happen as well.

It seems the only way a law enforcement agency is to avoid being accused of not upholding the provisions of this law and also not accused of racial profiling they will have to resort to random stops. Being unwilling or unable to produce an identifying document may just be construed as reasonable suspicion. If it is not then all a law enforcement officer can do is stop people to ask for a name and citizenship. That does not sound like an effective immigration enforcement policy to me. It does sound like a violation of our rights though.

Click to expand...

So, it all boils down to your "fear" that this will happen. FUD to put it bluntly.

Failure to produce documentation can only be used if RAS exists. Upon providing legal name, RAS should not exist, unless other circumstances call it into question.

You are arguing fear that something will happen. You will be much more kindly received if you stick to facts as opposed to fears.

imported post

IA_farmboy the impressions I get is that you think police will just walk up to any Hispanic they see on the street assume the are illegally here and demand papers and arrest them.

Might that happen? sure. Has it happened in the past? oh yeah. Is it illgeal? hell yes. Is that the intent and language of this new law? Hell no

Sure the law could be abused by a bad cop and bad district attorney and a bad judge and a crappy defense lawyer. that could happen to any law.

So because a law could be used incorrectly we should not implement it? Or what we could do is if there are any abuses of it we could handle them in the manner that we already do.

Also if a Arizona Police officer does find someone illegal in the US, Arizona does not drive them down to the boarder and kick them out. The are turned over to the federal government then they do their thing with them and maybe deport them.