Legally residing non citizens are required to carry their visa with them as proof of legality already last I knew.

 

I didn't know anything about it, but a few minutes of google-fu and, voila, here's some info about it: http://www.mcg.edu/research/postdoc/TravelAdvice.htm

 

I was just doing the same search and found essentially the same info.

It's slow to find on an iPod h:

 

i always thought that was funny.

they think that they have some kind of right to be here

FREEDOM ISNT FREE

 

On a side note I just got back from visiting my brother in Phoenix. Fucking loved it.

The bartenders at tilted Kilt :love:

 

Ok, here's the plain old text of section 264 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act federal law: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/S...-0-0-8289.html

So I agree, this says legally residing aliens should carry their papers with them "at all times."

Here's Arizona fact sheet on SB1070: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2...70pshs.doc.htm
Here's the full text: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...zuviOXyQ1ZxvVQ

The piece of which that most certainly is not already a federal law is,

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made…to determine the immigration status of the person."

Some scanning through the Justia brief on reasonable suspicion led me to a supreme court decision United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) that sure seems to be counter to the above provision of Arizona SB 1070. It states:

"The Fourth Amendment held not to allow a roving patrol of the Border Patrol to stop a vehicle near the Mexican border and question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. Except at the border and its functional equivalents, patrolling officers may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences therefrom, reasonably warranting suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country."

What sort of "specific articulable facts" could there be that provide some kind of distinction between a hispanic citizen/legal resident, and an illegal? Both looking Mexican AND speaking Spanish? Ordering a taco? Going to a Los Lonely Boys concert? Wearing a Cholula hot sauce trucker hat? Standing in front of Home Depot offering to do roofing for cheap? Stuffing 7 people into a brown 1985 Nissan Maxima with bubbling purple window tint, saggy rear shocks and a gothic-script RODRIGUEZ banner across the rear window?

So no, it's not about having sympathy for illegals or not wanting to round them up. It's about thinking this leaves the door way too freakin wide open for a large number of citizens and legal residents to be under constant scrutiny by the cops.

 

So I take it you support the bill? :chuckles:

just wondering though what your thoughts are on it overall?

 

Yes Mike they cannot pull them over for DWM but if a legal stop is made they are able to now ask for proof of citizenship or visa papers. Before this bill they could not do this nor could they detain if they found that they were here ilegally.

So yes there has to be a primary justification to begin the process.

 

If that were the limit of the law then sure, it wouldn't be great but perhaps a tough stance to deal with a tough issue. If you're both speeding and DWM and you don't have papers, oh well.

But the way AZ SB 1070 is written can be read as stating that reasonable suspicion of someone being an illegal can in and of itself constitute lawful contact by an official. That's the problem.

 

Except that there are many laws written in the same manner, in fact the federal law this backs up states the same as I recall when discussing enforcement (been a while since I read it).

If someone looks suspicious next to a closed business does a police officer not approach them and ask them what they are doing? Maybe ask for ID etc? this would be the same idea behind suspicion, it all begins with initial contact.

You could take the DUI checkpoints as an example, you pull up an officer engages you by asking if you have been drinking tonight and your response either triggers his supicions and has you pull to the side or he checks your license and kicks you free.

Now you could say that is also a matter of guilty before innocent because they initially stopped you with no suspicious act being committed, but it has been fought in court time and again yet still is found that these checkpoints are lawful as well as the procedures they follow.