RT @Reuters: FLASH: U.S. judge blocks part of Arizona law that requires officer to determine immigration status of person detained, arrested
RT @Reuters: FLASH: U.S. judge blocks part of Arizona law that requires officer to determine immigration status of person detained, arrested
I just don’t understand this. The first thing the police do when they detain or arrest someone is check to see if they have committed other crimes. Being in the United States illegally is a crime. So why can’t they check?
Or maybe someone can explain to me how an illegal immigrant has Constitutional rights?
(note I do understand that the police etc have Constitutional obligations)
1) As I understand it, no one is saying they “can’t check,” just that they can’t be forced to check in every circumstance in the manner described by the specific terms of this law.
2) Your second comment is so completely asinine that you should really be banned from the Internet for 24 hours for saying something so stupid.* Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, by definition, if the police are checking someone’s immigration status, they don’t KNOW yet whether that person is “an illegal immgirant,” which means, OBVIOUSLY, by definition, that the person whose status is being “checked” is presumed innocent, and indeed plenty of actually innocent people will have their statuses “checked.” Therefore, this provision doesn’t merely affect the rights of “illegal immigrants,” it affects the right of, potentially, EVERYONE. (Especially everyone with brown skin.)
Please note, I am NOT saying I necessarily think it’s unconstitutional, so don’t come back at me with defenses of the law. Maybe the law is OK for other reasons. All I’m saying is that your chosen line of reasoning — that it can’t be unconstitutional because “illegal immigrants” don’t have constitutional rights — is so completely and utterly idiotic, for such an obvious and self-evident reason, that you should apologize forthwith to Reason, Logic and Truth.
*This is purely rhetorical; I am not actually suggesting that anyone actually infringe your free speech rights, nor threatning to ban you.
bviously, OBVIOUSLY, by definition, if the police are checking someone’s immigration status, they don’t KNOW yet whether that person is “an illegal immgirant,” which means, OBVIOUSLY, by defintiion, that the person whose status is being “checked” is presumed innocent,
The same thing applies to any other crime. If I get pulled over for speeding, they are going to check to see if I have warrants. I’d wager that at least 90% of the time, people have no warrants, yet their is no presumption of innocence there, and no one seems to give a damn.
And my argument about Constitutional rights mainly concerns the process after it has already been determined that they are illegal.
“I’d wager that at least 90% of the time, people have no warrants, yet their is no presumption of innocence there, and no one seems to give a damn.”
Unless they’re only checking for warrants on “suspicious” drivers, I don’t see how there’s no presumption of innocence.
kcatnd – sounds/reads like you have the same thought process on this as I do …
When a driver is pulled over, and the LEO checks for warrants, the driver is still being presumed innocent on warrants until proven guilty by the driver’s name turning up as having outstanding warrants … the mere check of warrants just doesn’t constitute a “presumption of guilt” …
It’s an expression of “Trust, yet verify” …
“When a driver is pulled over and the LEO checks for immigration status, the driver is presumed to be here legally until proven to be here illegally..the mere check of status doesn’t constitute a presumption of guilt…..”
Again, I am NOT SAYING that the law unconstitutionally presumes anyone’s guilt. What I am doing is simply responding to what YOU said, gahrie, which was:
The clear meaning of the second part of your comment seemed to be saying that “checking” to see if someone is “in the United States illegally” cannot possibly pose a constitutional question because “illegal immigrants” don’t have “Constitutional rights.” (If that wasn’t what you were saying, then… well, then the second part of your comment is incoherent and irrelevant.) But of course, that’s complete nonsense, because a law requiring police to check if people are “in the United States illegally” does not merely affect illegal immigrants, it affects everyone, including innocent people who are “checked.” Maybe it doesn’t ultimately violate those people’s constitutional rights, but if not, the reason isn’t “because illegal immigrants don’t have constitutional rights,” which was your argument.
Your argument, by positing that the “checks” are OK because illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights, implicitly but necessarily assumes that everyone being “checked” is an illegal immigrant. (This assumption must be present, otherwise your rhetorical question “Or maybe someone can explain…” is meaningless and incoherent in context.) That is, you are (or were) inherently presuming that everyone being “checked” is guilty. The law might not presume that, but your argument does (or did).
So, again, irrespective of the merits of the law itself, I was simply saying that YOUR ARGUMENT was completely ridiculous on its face, and utterly worthy of severe mockery.
Now, if you meant to say something else, e.g. something about “the process after it has already been determined that they are illegal,” then fine, but that’s not what you said. I was responding to what you said, viewed in context. What you said, in the context that you said it, was incredibly asinine and absurd — even if Arizona’s law is totally constitutional and defensible on other grounds.
Checking whether or not there are warrants out on an individual is not a violation of the constitution because its not requiring YOU to give any information. Asking for your papers is, however, a violation of your privacy. There’s a significant difference in these two situations.
Asking for your papers is, however, a violation of your privacy.
Tell that to the next cop who asks you for your driver’s license.
And yes, just as the law requires you to have a driver’s license, it requires resident aliens to carry immigration papers…..
Oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the cops may ask about your immigration status…
You don’t have to show your driver’s license.
Really?
really?
You better check that again. The whole point of issuing driver’s licenses is so you can show them to cops.
I’d plan on staying a night or two in jail and having my car impounded if you don’t show your license when asked.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/faq/When_do_I_have_to_show_ID
You are only required to show your ID (and this is only in some states) on reasonable suspicion of a crime. There is no law in this country requiring citizens to carry proof of identity.
I read a website the other day that said you only have to pay taxes on income earned outside of the country. I guess Wesley Snipes reads the same site.
I’m dissapointed this law did not go into effect today, as-is. Legals and Illegals have 49 other choices in states to live in, and this experiment would have been great. There’s nothing I love more than seeing a bunch of narrow-minded haters burn up in the desert, but enough about Iran.
There is no law in this country requiring citizens to carry proof of identity.
But there is a law requiring resident aliens to do so.
I really don’t get you David. You have no problem with the government forcing citizens to buy health insurance, but it is a human rights violation to ask to see your id.
Hmm, I can’t recall seeing anywhere where i’ve called it a human rights violation to ask to see someones id, so I really can’t answer that question gahrie.
If it is not a human right’s violation, why do you oppose the police asking for ID and/or determining your immigration status?
Can someone clarify for me: This is a preliminary injunction, and the actual case has not yet been heard, correct? Thus, upon the hearing of the case and a final decision, the injunction might be dropped and the law enforced? Or is this a final ruling, and the state would have to file an appeal to overturn?
They should pull people over and make them try some menudo. Anybody who likes that crap is either an illegal immigrant or Andrew Zimmern.
This is a preliminary injunction, and the actual case has not yet been heard, correct?
Correct.
“If it is not a human right’s violation, why do you oppose the police asking for ID and/or determining your immigration status?”
Because it’s unconstitutional? Because it’s veiled racism? Because it’s a bad law that won’t help the situations it’s allegedly supposed to? Because the whole having to show papers is ACTUALLY more of a communist policy than health care reform and sets a scary precedent?
Because it’s unconstitutional?”
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Because it’s veiled racism?
Bullshit. Just because the facts of the current immigration problem mean that it will affect Mexicans in the United States most, doesn’t mean that Mexicans are being targeted, it means that more Mexicans are violating the law.
Because it’s a bad law that won’t help the situations it’s allegedly supposed to?
Isn’t that up to the Arizona legislature and the Arizonan people to decide?
Because the whole having to show papers is ACTUALLY more of a communist policy than health care reform and sets a scary precedent?
The requirement of aliens to show their papers has been Federal law for over 60 years already.
Really? The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans are required to show proof of citizenship whenever asked? I guess I must have missed that one.
I’d also like to point out, that once again, you were wrong, and I wasn’t complaining on human rights grounds. It’s almost as if you just make shit up and attribute it to people without proof. Oh wait, thats EXACTLY what you do.
Really? The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans are required to show proof of citizenship whenever asked?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police can inquire as to your immigration status when they come into official contact with you. In fact, the Court went further than Arizona’s law, because Arizona requires a reasonable suspicion, and the Court’s decision did not. I’ve cited the case on this site at least once before.
Muehler V Mena 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (decided 9-0)
The Court further held that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena.
I’d also like to point out, that once again, you were wrong, and I wasn’t complaining on human rights grounds
You are right. You actually didn’t argue the only case that has a reasonable claim to logic, and instead decided to go straight to logical fallacies, erronerous reasoning and predictions with no factual basis.
I overestimated you, my bad.
By the way, US citizens are required to present proof of citizenship when re-entering the country (how quaint, actually expecting someone crossing the border to prove they have the right to do so…) and when applying for medicaid.
By the way, the injunction does not prohibit Arizona police from determining the immigration status of people they detain. The injunction only applies to the requirement that they do so.
Regarding this statement: “doesn’t mean that Mexicans are being targeted, it means that more Mexicans are violating the law.”
The ignorant to informed translation:
Mexican = any person with brown skin residing (or frormerly residing) in countries from south of the american border including countries from South America, Central America, and North America.
Sandy:
No…Mexican = a citizen of the country of Mexico, many of which are living and working illegally in the United States.
Yes there are illegals from other countries. They should be deported also. But the vast majority of illegals are from Mexico, which is why most people affected are Mexicans. (not, not Americans of Mexican descent)