The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[flippyshark]

Yeah, I can't see much wrong with temporary baked bean expression. Can political macaroni art be far behind?

[scaeagles]

First of all, I never said I was completely for the law. However, I do think that this is being blown completely out of porportion be people who haven't read it.

Rather than try to explain why I think this isn't as bad as it is being made out to be, i think this explains it reasonably well.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

First of all, I never said I was completely for the law. However, I do think that this is being blown completely out of porportion be people who haven't read it.

I did read it, when I linked to the text in full earlier. I remain unconvinced that there is a satisfactory definition of "reasonable suspicion" that doesn't involve race. And that article points out exactly the paradox that Alex alluded to previously, the fact that a large portion of those in favor of it are the same that bristle at the mention of the phrase "national ID card", and yet the defense of this bill is that we're all okay with showing or driver's license.

Until you can convince me that a white person standing in front of Home Depot is just as likely to be asked for his driver's license as a brown person is, no dice.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

First of all, I never said I was completely for the law. However, I do think that this is being blown completely out of porportion be people who haven't read it.

Rather than try to explain why I think this isn't as bad as it is being made out to be, i think this explains it reasonably well.

Why oh why did I think things may have changed around here and you'd actually answer a question. Since it seems you want to play semantics I'll rephrase:

would you have the same feelings towards this law if your family didn't look like they belong here? If it was your family who was at risk of getting pulled over and/or questioned about their immigration status?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

First of all, I never said I was completely for the law. However, I do think that this is being blown completely out of porportion be people who haven't read it.

I have read it. It is a truly awful law (though I won't go so far as to say it was taken from Nazis as I don't believe it was).

And Kris Kobach as quoted in that article is repeating what he said in his NYT op-ed and it is misleading.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

That's simply misleading. Lawful contact is much broader than that. Asking a policeman for directions is lawful contact. Entering a police station to report a crime is lawful contact. Being a passenger in a car going through a sobriety checkpoint is lawful contact. If the desire was to limit to giving tickets or when dealing with another crime committed by the suspected illegal immigrant then they should have written the bill that way.

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking.

Do you know why there's a great deal of caselaw on this issue? Because nobody can agree on what "reasonable suspicion" is and are therefore constantly litigating it.

It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

It does say that. Personally I don't think it is any improvement say it was because you were walking on the side of the road, drinking Hecho en Mexico Coca Cola and looked Hispanic.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

A. Since there is no requirement that citizens carry any papers, on what reasonable suspicion did the police officer act in determining that none of the passengers had identification? It is a bit of circular logic to say that lack of identification when none is legally required is evidence of illegal lack of identification.

B. Just how long are you, as a citizen of the United States, allowed to be detained while you're identity is confirmed? Even though there is no legal requirement that a citizen be able to provide evidence of citizenship during random encounters with the authorities ?

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

That's backwards, the reasonable suspicion was eliminated by action only required if there's reasonable suspicion (for the passengers, obviously a driver has to produce a drivers license). It doesn't say whether producing a Mexican drivers license constitutes reasonable suspicion since Mexican tourists will often be traveling that way.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

First, there is no legal requirement that a person actually have any form of ID. I have a friend who lived in California for a decade without a drivers license (he didn't drive) and he never got a California state ID card when his Washington State ID card expired. Hope he never gets pulled over as a passenger in Arizona where a cop thinks he talks funny.

Second, is that really the treshhold? Because there are some times you'll have to show ID it is ok for it to be expected any time?



To use the example given in that article, me and 12 of my Hispanic friends, all born in Seattle, decide to visit my grandmother in Yuma. I'm driving. One of my friends forgets his wallet but that's fine because we'll cover him on the expenses and he can pay us back when we get home. Somewhere around Tucson (we got lost and are trying to make up time) I get pulled over for speeding. THe police officer decides this overly crowded vehicle appears to be full of Mexicans and their gringo coyote. How long will my ID-less (and not legally required to have ID) friend going to be detained while the police officer contacts ICE to confirm identity and me, as a suspected human smuggler?

And if it won't be race based, how much less will I have to fear if instead I fill my car with friends from Toronto, all in the country illegally?

[Strangler Lewis]

Assuming the letter of the law is as described, and assuming everyone behaves angelically in implementing it, it is still unnecessary pandering unless Arizona had a pre-existing limit on law enforcement's powers in this area.

It's as if a law was passed requiring the police to detain every homosexual that they reasonably suspected to have molested a child. The police can already do that.

By the way, whenever you read about something that's been "reasonably crafted" and "narrowly tailored" after "due deliberation," lock your door and hide. Something outrageous is about to happen.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

By the way, whenever you read about something that's been "reasonably crafted" and "narrowly tailored" after "due deliberation," lock your door and hide. Something outrageous is about to happen.

“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

That's attributed to MLK, though I cannot find a reference that sites a source.

[Strangler Lewis]

I still can't find the text of the darned bill.

As a practical matter, there would be a big difference in harassment potential if the bill said "during a lawful encounter with police" rather than "during a lawful detention." A lawful encounter is any encounter with law enforcement that is not the product of an illegal detention. "Hey, amigo, can I talk to you?" is not an illegal detention because, the decisions are clear, unless you are detained, you can terminate an encounter with an officer and just walk away.

Everyone knows that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The bill

Senate fact sheet.

I'm not 100% sure that's the absolute final version of the bill that was passed, but from what I gather it's at least very close.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The article you posted, scaeagles, also doesn't address exactly how us law-abiding citizens are supposed to magically determine who we can and can't hire, or give a ride to. Are bus drivers now going to have to refuse service to anyone they saw walk over from standing in front of Home Depot, lest they turn out to be illegal immigrants, putting the driver at risk of prosecution?