Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on May 11, 2010, 04:56:24 PM
-
They probably couldn't get anybody to sign their referendums. If I remember right, in order to sign a referendum, you must be an registered voter. Most of the registered voters in AZ are for the new law
Ariz. Referendum Drives Targeting New Law Dropped
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/11/ariz-referendum-drives-targeting-new-law-dropped/?test=latestnews
Associated Press
The two proposed referendum drives challenging Arizona's new sweeping law targeting illegal immigration are being abandoned, organizers said Monday.
PHOENIX -- The two proposed referendum drives challenging Arizona's new sweeping law targeting illegal immigration are being abandoned, organizers said Monday.
Andrew Chavez, a professional petition circulator involved in one of the efforts, said its backers pulled the plug after concluding they might not be able to time their petition filings in such a way as to put the law on hold pending a 2012 public vote.
Jon Garrido, the chief organizer of the other drive, attributed its end to a belief that the law would have been subject to legal protections under Arizona's Constitution if approved by Arizona voters.
The law takes effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by court injunctions requested under at least three of the four pending legal challenges already filed by an Hispanic clergy group, police officers and other individuals.
Its provisions include requiring that police enforcing another law must question a person about his or her immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
Critics have said the law will result in racial profiling of Hispanics. Supporters deny that and say the law will pressure illegal immigrants to leave the country on their own.
Chavez said his clients, whom he would not identify, launched the effort in the belief that they could put the law on hold until 2012 by not filing petition signatures until it was too late for state elections officials to place a referendum on the November ballot.
However, the backers decided over the weekend to end the referendum campaign when they concluded there still might be a November vote, not giving them enough time to be confident about being able to wage a successful campaign against the law, Chavez said.
The normal deadline for ballot questions is July 1, after which the printing of November ballots and other election preparations typically get under way. The Secretary of State's Office previously acknowledged that a down-to-the-wire referendum filing by this year's July 28 deadline might not give officials enough time to get it on the November ballot. However, the office also said it would depend on circumstances at the time.
Garrido, the chief organizer of the second referendum drive, said its backers abandoned it after getting legal advice that Arizona's constitutional protections for voter-approved ballot measures would have applied to the law if approved by voters.
Secretary of State's spokesman Matt Benson said Monday the office also believes that the constitutional limitations on possible legislative action would have applied to the law if voters approved it.
The constitutional provisions bar the Legislature from repealing a voter-approved law and only allow legislative changes that further the intent of the original law. Also, any changes must be approved by three-quarters votes of both the House and Senate.
The four legal challenges filed so far in U.S. District Court in Phoenix have been randomly assigned to different judges. Several major civil-rights groups are expected to file another challenge as early as this week.
No hearings have been set yet on the lawsuits, which likely will be consolidated into one case before a single judge. That judge would then set a schedule for consideration of the plaintiffs' requests for injunctions and rulings to strike down the law.
-
The people authoring the drive also realized that a voter-approved law in AZ automatically has constitutional protection in AZ.
Garrido, the chief organizer of the second referendum drive, said its backers abandoned it after getting legal advice that Arizona's constitutional protections for voter-approved ballot measures would have applied to the law if approved by voters.
They realized not only would they lose, they'd be strengthening the law when they did.
-
:lol:
-
I lol'ed. Good stuff coming outta AZ these days. Now if they can just get MacDaddy out...
-
He is all for the new law and for building all of the fences. He must be really running scared.
-
Point him south, as in Mexico City. =)
-
How would this law be enforceable? Let's assume that a cop had "reasonable suspicion" that someone was here illegally and they ask the person if they are here legally and the person, who is here illegally, says yes. What can the cop do? Can the person refuse to answer?
-
How would this law be enforceable? Let's assume that a cop had "reasonable suspicion" that someone was here illegally and they ask the person if they are here legally and the person, who is here illegally, says yes. What can the cop do? Can the person refuse to answer?
They arrest them. It is now a state crime in AZ to be in the country illegally.
-
Yep. Basically what happened is AZ noticed that fed.gov was refusing to enforce the law, so they took .fed law and made it a state law as well.
-
They arrest them. It is now a state crime in AZ to be in the country illegally.
So the cop is psychic? What if your not here illegally and you walk away when they ask you? They can arrest you? For what?
-
So the cop is psychic? What if your not here illegally and you walk away when they ask you? They can arrest you? For what?
The cop may ask those questions if he has you stopped as part of a legal stop.
He already has a different probable cause to detain you. If you walk away, you are resisting arrest.
Honestly, there's a whole thread here about the law. Might want to check it out.
-
What if your not here illegally and you walk away when they ask you?
Try walking away when a LEO is questioning you and see how far you get before something you won't like happens. Maybe you start watching the show "Cops" and you will get an idea of what can, and may, happen if you disobey a police command.
Also if you watch "Cops", remember they know they are being taped, but they are not very gental.
-
He already has a different probable cause to detain you.
Like a license plate light that is out? lol
The cop may ask those questions if he has you stopped as part of a legal stop.
How is he supposed to actually know if you are here legally or not?
-
There is a lot on BS going around about the AZ law, most of which comes from libs who have a lot invested in continuing illegal immigration. They claim that now an officer can just walk around, spot some "brown people" hassle them for ID and haul them off to jail. THis is of course, entirely false.
This law applies when the person in question is already being detained for other lawbreaking. They are already stopped, detained, or arrested. They have already broken another law like shoplifting, OWI, or as is the probable case in Phoenix, murder and kidnapping. This law simply allows police to also investigate whether the person is an illegal, which they were not able to do before.
-
This law applies when the person in question is already being detained for other lawbreaking.
Like a license plate light that is out? Oh, well it turns out that it actually wasn't out but since I already have you pulled over, are you here legally?
-
Like a license plate light that is out? Oh, well it turns out that it actually wasn't out but since I already have you pulled over, are you here legally?
No. Not like that. Care to stop being snarky and discuss the thread?
-
Yes like that. If not, then how? Also, again, how is he supposed to actually know if you are here legally or not?
-
Yes like that. If not, then how? Also, again, how is he supposed to actually know if you are here legally or not?
They are supposed to have reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is here illegally. Believe me, there are plenty of suspicious traffic stops that happen here.
For instance: A minivan gets pulled over for speeding on a know human trafficking corridor Upon stopping the van the officer notices that there are 15 people in there. The officer asks the driver if he knows the names of his passengers. The driver cannot.
Another:
A pickup truck blows through a red light. When the officer approaches the vehicle, he realizes that there is a person or persons under the lumber in the back of the truck.
These sound improbable, but apparently these scenarios are pretty common AZ.
The final determination of the legality of their presence is left up to the Feds. Under the law, their reasonable suspicion gives them the ability to ask for the info.
-
They are supposed to have reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is here illegally. Believe me, there are plenty of suspicious traffic stops that happen here.
Yeah, they stop someone for some reason, ran a stop sign, brake lights out, whatever. They notice something they consider suspicious, like a lot of people. But then what? So I can be arrested if I don't know everybody in my car? At what point can the person actually be arrested?
-
Yeah, they stop someone for some reason, ran a stop sign, brake lights out, whatever. They notice something they consider suspicious, like a lot of people. But then what? So I can be arrested if I don't know everybody in my car? At what point can the person actually be arrested?
You might try, you know, reading the actual law. It's like 14 pages.
Like a license plate light that is out? Oh, well it turns out that it actually wasn't out but since I already have you pulled over, are you here legally?
This law has anything to do with illegal stops how? Oh, it has absolutely nothing to do with that, but bringing it up makes you feel as though you've scored a point somehow? Good to know. /shakes head You need to take this weak crap back to RevLeft freak, it ain't gonna fly around here.
-
Read the law. Accoring to what I read of the law, if the person has a legal state drivers liscense, that is all they need as proof that they are here legally.
I would think that if I was a LEO and stopped sombody for speeding, and they did not have ANY ID, and did not speak English, I would be suspecious, no matter what they looked like.
-
First, I would think legal residents or citizens would be in the system for the officer to look up for a basic description.
Second, I heard that has already been Federal law for a while that legal immigrants (not citizens) are required to carry their "papers" with them.
-
Yeah, they stop someone for some reason, ran a stop sign, brake lights out, whatever. They notice something they consider suspicious, like a lot of people. But then what? So I can be arrested if I don't know everybody in my car? At what point can the person actually be arrested?
If you pay attention to all the Taser threads, the police can arrest you pretty much whenever they decide you need to be arrested. =D You can argue about it later, but they have guns and lots of friends with guns.
If you have 10 people in your car and you don't know who they are and you are in a known human trafficking corridor, why do you think the officer should just say okay and walk away?
Honestly, all your arguments could also be made when talking about cops pulling over black people too much. Those laws are completely different and this immigration enforcement law doesn't change them a bit.
-
no snark from?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpix.motivatedphotos.com%2F2009%2F3%2F9%2F633721768073732260-FREAKAZOID.jpg&hash=4fdaf4a4d3c4794988f2ebd19b9d73ad311ce021) (http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=12115)
what is the world coming to? :angel:
-
Yeah, they stop someone for some reason, ran a stop sign, brake lights out, whatever. They notice something they consider suspicious, like a lot of people. But then what? So I can be arrested if I don't know everybody in my car? At what point can the person actually be arrested?
You will likely be arrested if the officer can clearly state in plain language (not a hunch or "spidey sense") why he/she think you are in the country illegally. It would be articulated as a totality of circumstances, not just one thing. These are criteria that already exist in law enforcement.
In the situation you just mentioned, an officer would likely ask for a reason why you don't know the people you are driving in your car. If you don't give a reasonable explanation, I think it is reasonable to ask for ID. If you don't have your state issued license with you, you can give the officer your name and social, and they will be able to find you in their system.
-
Try walking away when a LEO is questioning you and see how far you get before something you won't like happens. Maybe you start watching the show "Cops" and you will get an idea of what can, and may, happen if you disobey a police command.
Um, no.
If the cop is merely questioning you, you're free to STFU or walk away at any time.
If the cop has formally detained you, you can't walk away. You can still STFU, and unless the cop can come up with something in a reasonable amount of time he has to let you go.
-
If you really care what the law says, and not just spouting the anti law line, go here:
http://www.rgj.com/article/20100430/NEWS13/100430024/1321/NEWS/Text-of-Arizona-immigration-law
-
Um, no.
If the cop is merely questioning you, you're free to STFU or walk away at any time.
If the cop has formally detained you, you can't walk away. You can still STFU, and unless the cop can come up with something in a reasonable amount of time he has to let you go.
and when your pulled over between there and home with no DL, POI, or CCW? while the cop has your papers your detained. =| unless you trust him/her to bring them to you?
-
I think you're formally detained if the cop takes your paperwork. Ianal etc
-
You might try, you know, reading the actual law. It's like 14 pages.
If Desertdogs link is correct then there really isn't anything in it. It basically says that they can't ignore federal law and if they have probably cause for believing that the person has committed an offense that makes them eligible for removal from the US then they can arrest them. Everything else is about employment and a little bit at the end about impounding the vehicle. So, you know, it doesn't actually answer my questions so like if you could answer them then like it would be awesome.
This law has anything to do with illegal stops how?
Brought it up to show how they can get around needing to have them already stopped for something else.
Oh, and the nick is freakazoid, not freak. Try typing the whole thing out next time ok. I don't take kindly to your treatment.
Read the law. Accoring to what I read of the law, if the person has a legal state drivers liscense, that is all they need as proof that they are here legally.
Didn't California, or some other state, say that they would issue licenses to illegals a while back?
-
and when your pulled over between there and home with no DL, POI, or CCW? while the cop has your papers your detained. undecided unless you trust him/her to bring them to you?
If you're pulled over driving with no DL, you're going to jail. No ops on person is a misdemeanor (at least it is in MI, not sure about AZ)
-
Fussy lil thing aren't ya?
You're right, all the law does is restate fed law. Why this is causing the massive twisting of panties is beyond me.
As for your example...
You're basically saying "If cops break the law, this would give them the right to hassle people legally!" which makes no sense. If cops want to hassle you and are willing to break the law to do so, how is this going to have any effect either way?
-
If you're pulled over driving with no DL, you're going to jail. No ops on person is a misdemeanor (at least it is in MI, not sure about AZ)
In AZ, if you do not have a valid drivers license, it is a class 1 misdemeanor and penalties can include the vehicle being impounded, 48 hours in jail and a court imposed fine of $300 or more.
If you merely left your license at home, you can tell the officer your name and SSN, and they can look you up.
-
Didn't California, or some other state, say that they would issue licenses to illegals a while back?
The ID from any state that does not require legal residency for a DL will not be considered proof of citizenship. It is written in the law.
However, it has been suggested that in practice, officers will accept valid DLs as sufficient proof. Once this law goes into effect, they anticipate plenty of work going into arresting those who have no DLs.
-
You're right, all the law does is restate fed law. Why this is causing the massive twisting of panties is beyond me.
My guess: they're worried that the Arizona law will actually be enforced.
-
It seems like some commentators imagine all the Hispanics in Arizona being rounded up. I've never been to Arizona, but I can only imagine that all the Hispanics in Arizona is a pretty BIG number, and any cops invoking the new law every time they see a "Mex," will be some very busy cops indeed.
-
It seems like some commentators imagine all the Hispanics in Arizona being rounded up. I've never been to Arizona, but I can only imagine that all the Hispanics in Arizona is a pretty BIG number, and any cops invoking the new law every time they see a "Mex," will be some very busy cops indeed.
And arresting each other pretty often, too. :lol:
-
Attorney General Eric Holder, who claims he is considering a Civil Rights lawsuit, had not taken time to read the AZ immigration law, as of 4/13/2010. But he is ready to to fight it.
-
It seems like some commentators imagine all the Hispanics in Arizona being rounded up. I've never been to Arizona, but I can only imagine that all the Hispanics in Arizona is a pretty BIG number, and any cops invoking the new law every time they see a "Mex," will be some very busy cops indeed.
Yep. The LEGAL hispanic population makes up about 30% of AZ's total population. That is why racial profiling wouldn't even be a useful practice here.
And arresting each other pretty often, too. :lol:
QFT. There are a whole lot of MCSO deputies that are Hispanic. Not to mention BP . . .
Attorney General Eric Holder, who claims he is considering a Civil Rights lawsuit, had not taken time to read the AZ immigration law, as of 4/13/2010. But he is ready to to fight it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/
Interesting quotes from him. He knows that he can't do anything about a law that simply mirrors US code, so all he can do is just hem and haw.
-
From the http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/ story.
But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.
They are not allowed to "stop those they suspect are in the country illegally," but they ask for their papers if they stop them for some other reason.
Personally I think they should check anybody carrying a foreign flag at a demonstration for their legal status.
-
Fussy lil thing aren't ya?
And you accuse me of being snarky, ;/
You're right, all the law does is restate fed law.
So then what are the answers to my questions?
You're basically saying "If cops break the law, this would give them the right to hassle people legally!" which makes no sense. If cops want to hassle you and are willing to break the law to do so, how is this going to have any effect either way?
Any effect on what?
-
If a cop A wants to hassle you and B is willing to break the law to do so, then this new law will change nothing. The cops are already breaking the law to start, right? So your argument is "This law makes it legal to harrass people, if a cop first breaks a whole bunch of other laws."
As for your questions, they are non-sensical and display an utter lack of understanding of both the new law and current police procedures. This new law changes nothing about the manner in which police stops are conducted. It merely allows police to do something about a class of crime they have previously had to ignore.
-
I am going to Phoenix on business this coming Monday. I'll be there for eleven days, so I should be able to see first hand if the world is coming to an end because of this law.
Oh, wait, the law doesn't go into effect until July. I suppose as long as I can avoid seeing my ex-inlaws everything will work out and I'll have a good trip.
-
Personally I think they should check anybody carrying a foreign flag at a demonstration for their legal status.
Can we enforce AZ Law in Chicago on St. Patricks Day ?? =D =D ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07P3BtRwGuo&feature=related
-
Can we enforce AZ Law in Chicago on St. Patricks Day ?? =D =D ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07P3BtRwGuo&feature=related
If we start to get the impression that there is large amount of illegal Irish immigrants, than by all means start checking IDs.
-
If we start to get the impression that there is large amount of illegal Irish immigrants, than by all means start checking IDs.
If anyone swims across the border from Ireland, I ain't messin' with him.
-
Personally I think they should check anybody carrying a foreign flag at a demonstration for their legal status.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fatlasshrugs2000.typepad.com%2Fatlas_shrugs%2Fimages%2F2009%2F01%2F06%2Fnycrally1608_070.jpg&hash=8927683dc56efa2f4f51361fad09a25c16c4880a)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fatlasshrugs2000.typepad.com%2Fatlas_shrugs%2Fimages%2F2009%2F01%2F06%2Fnycrally1608_001.jpg&hash=549707f24f4431bb655953ecde36b15872f3a501)
-
Brought it up to show how they can get around needing to have them already stopped for something else.
The police can't legally get around having to stop a person for some legitimate reason before starting the investigation into residence status.
In the thread concerning the burned-out tag light, the driver was stopped legally, at least according to the cop. But if the light was working and the cop just used that excuse to pull over the driver, then the cop is in violation of the law and everything that happens after that will be inadmissable in court. You know this already, I'd bet.
Will Arizona's new law stop police corruption/crime/illegal stops? No, of course not. All it does is allow the police to investigate a person's US residence status once a "lawful" stop has been made. I saw " lawful" because only the courts can decide after-the-fact if the stop was lawful.
Will there be cops unlawfully stopping/detaining "brown people" just to check their immigration status? Yes, of course. Do we currently have cops that unlawfully stop people to check for seatbelt useage, drunk driving, insurance, drugs, etc? Yes, of course.
Will the new AZ law create thousands of rogue cops who just want to detain/harass/deport "those brown people?" I don't think so.
-
Will the new AZ law create thousands of rogue cops who just want to detain/harass/deport "those brown people?" I don't think so.
That's the real crux of the issue. The Left thinks it will. I agree that I will not.