The Glade 4.0

Can you explain what you think my real position is, Ladas?

I don't know, but based upon what you have posted here, and your lack of posts on similiar situation for the different subjects, I feel pretty confident that this is a lot less to do with the erosion of the 4th and rise of the police state, and a lot more to do with something else. Now, I won't rule out that for some reason you think this particular instance steps over a dividing line between acceptable and non-acceptable erosion of the 4th, but considering there are exact parallels to this "new" mandate and directly relevant federal laws and related powers, that seems very thin. However, if that is the case, what is the difference between the current state power and federal? Why the concern?

Ladas:

The counter argument you're likely to hear is that the Health Care Reform Act does not erode the Fourth Amendment. IN fact, juridically speaking, the HCRA is rather brilliant: it erodes no civil liberties and provides no tangible government power or mandates; and, for the same reason it does neither of those things, it will likely be found immune to the scrutiny of the Courts. It's not an actual law: it's tax code.

_________________

Right, but it is only by "lawful contact" that the IRS can require proof of insurance to know if you should pay a tax penalty.

I find it hard to reconcile those like RD that are arguing against the concept of the law based upon the 4th for the AZ topic, but completely ignoring how its abused by the federal government, or when its used for things that support positions they support.

I disagree with this law for a variety of reasons.

First, it provides the government with more power and encourages an atmosphere of "us" vs. "them".

Second, it should not be within the constitutional authority of Arizona to govern who comes in and out of their state. If you are welcome in the US, you are welcome in Arizona.

Third, contact with the police should not be discouraged in any way. The police should be viewed as working with the populous, for the populous. They should be earning the trust of the people so they can perform their jobs more effectively.

Fourth, I prefer the system where the immigration status is checked at the time of fingerprinting, and the status relayed to ICE. Again, it's the Fed's jurisdiction.

All hotels in Europe require a passport on check-in.

The entirety of the US requires presentable ID in some form or another if questioned by law enforcement.

Why aren't you whining about that? Oh, because this disparately affects one ethnic group. So what.



Then you need to read more, at least when it comes to traveling or living abroad. If, as an example, I move to New Zealand and utilize the ANZUS and other treaties to take advantage of the ability to live in their country for 90 days, I still require certain documents, even if I don't need a visa. Namely, the fact that I'm a US citizen and thus subject to the treaty that allows me to live there for a portion of time.

The ID required might vary, but requirements to have one while living abroad is one of the things you have to do if you wish to legally live abroad!



Whatever. Don't emigrate from your home country if you don't wish to follow the laws of your host country. You have to replace a passport or green card as it is if you lose it, the risk of doing so is no different after passage of this law than before.



What happens if you drive your car without a license and get pulled over? I don't mean you don't have a driver's license. I mean you forgot it that day. Perhaps you forgot your whole wallet and thus don't have any ID?

Same thing happens here, yet I don't see you complaining about driver's license requirements. Nor is the left.

I'm against required ID at all, but if we're going to have a state that says we can demand your "papers" (to quote major media this week) for operating a car or loitering on a corner, demanding "papers" to prove you're even in the country legally is actually a far less offensive demand.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No, it really doesn't in this case. It may appear that way because of the media bias, but there is nothing fundamentally different between asking your enforcement officers to verify your drivers license or proof of insurance. Likewise, federal law already requires legal immigrants to posses their paperwork as identification, so requesting this information is completely in line with other requests to verify identity. On top of that, its likely that the request for immigration papers would only be made if that person had no other form of identification, such a DL, which would provide the officer with at least some verification method (DL #, address, etc).


However, it is within the constitutional authority of the state of Arizona to govern who works in the state and other employment criteria, if for no other reason than it equates to state revenue through taxation. If you have noticed, there is a signification portion of the law that deals with penalties for companies hiring illegal immigrants, and it is my opinion that the primary motivation behind this law is not to make troopers enforce immigration on the roadways, but to give authorities jurisdiction and evidence collecting abilities at the place of employment, with the goal is cut off the income sources, removing the incentive to come to the state.


I call bullshit on this one. It sounds all nice and rosey for the touchy feel types, but enforcing the laws is working for the populus, and doing so protects those abiding by the laws. Otherwise, all you are doing is advocating police disregard some criminals in the hopes of making other criminals trust them.... that makes no sense.


I agree, for those found committing other crimes. However, see my comment about the work place enforcement. Should police not be able to show up at a job site and ask for proof of age for workers that are suspected of being employed while under age?

Your second point is a strawman. It does not do this. It gives authority to the police to question about the status and detain them for the BP/ICE to verify legal status. BP/ICE says if they are welcome in the U.S.

On your third point, nothing prevents this. Even if an illegal alien calls the police about something, this would only make it more likely a cop wouldn't suspect illegal status. If they don't have reasonable suspicion, they don't have to ask.

Your fourth point, this assumes the person being stopped is actually charged with a crime. If they have a reasonable suspicion to question them and in the course of that find the person is in the country illegally, it should be at the government's discretion to deport them. This is similar to making a traffic stop and finding somebody with an outstanding warrant for their arrest. Even if the initial stop results in no charges, it doesn't change the fact the person has already broken the law and must answer to it.

_________________
The Dude abides.

My understanding of the law is that it requires officers to look for immigration offenders in the people they come into lawful contact with. This isn't additional power, per se, but it's a focus on an area that I believe they should not be focusing. I agree that the media has much to do with the us vs them atmosphere, but this is a dangerous mentality that I just don't like to see in any situation.



I have no problem with this at all.



I'm not advocating that. I'm suggesting that there is a danger in making a segment of the population unwilling to approach the police. This does not do anyone any good.



Well, first of all, I believe it is within their jurisdiction to enforce labor laws. Not immigration laws. So if the immigrants are breaking a constitutional state law, then they should be detained, fingerprinted, and shipped off to ICE.

From the very first page:


If the cop doesn't have reasonable suspicion, he doesn't have to do anything.

_________________
The Dude abides.

It's requiring the state officers to focus on and "assist" ICE in enforcing federal laws. This is inappropriate.



It's still going to discourage the call. The cop could ask.



Detained. You are fingerprinted long before you are charged, but I'm nitpicking.



Yes and no. An outstanding warrant that shows up when someone's license is run is executed through a partnership between the jurisdiction stopping them and the jurisdiction where the offense occurred. If ICE establishes this partnership, then that is different. However, the laws are federal, and the enforcement of these laws, whether through a partnership or not, should be established by the federal government.

To me, I view this as similar to this: Assume you were stopped for speeding in a state that does not have a requirement for motor insurance, and you have none. You reside in a state that requires it. The cop then turns you in to your state for not conforming with your state's laws. It's inappropriate.

I know. Right now, if he does have reasonable suspicion, he doesn't have to do anything. That is appropriate, since he shouldn't be worried about enforcing federal laws.

I think you have a mistaken impression of my views regarding the 4th, Ladas. I believe I've been pretty consistent in saying that its erosion in recent years is problematic, whether the law enforcement agency is at the State or Federal level. I take a broader view of the Feds' Commerce Clause and Taxing/Spending powers than most on this board, of course, but those are different issues.

With regards to HCR, I'm not sure how the 4th is implicated, though based on Khross' post, I'm guessing the argument is that a Federal agency verifying a person's insurance status constitutes a search under the 4th? If so, that's an interesting point, particularly because of the individual mandate requiring everyone to carry insurance and thus requiring submission to the "search". Of course, I think the individual mandate should probably be held unConstitutional for other reasons anyway.

So you don't believe that law enforcement officers should be enforcing all the laws, only some?


The use versus them in this situation is law abiding people versus criminals...




There is a segment of the population that should be wary of approaching the police... the criminal segment. Now, if you are coming from the position of police prejudice against law abiding residents, that is a different matter, and I agree, something that needs to be mitigated/eradicated. However, what you are suggesting is the equivalent of advocating the police ignore illegal activity because it might make those people less likely to talk to the police?



Unless I am misremembering the law, and I didn't read that part of it that closely, that is exactly what happens... those suspected of being illegal are verified against ICE, and handed over to the Feds to deal with if found to be here illegally.

Except it is also a state law, not federal. Or are you advocating that city police can't pull you over for speeding since it is a state law?

Based on the number of cases that are thrown out on minor technicalities (and any subsequent civil lawsuits) I would imagine police will be extremely careful with their definition of "lawful contact". If not they sure as hell will be after the first 5 get over-turned and the departments sued for harassment based on racial profiling.

_________________

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. Is your point that existing Federal law already permits Federal law enforcement officers/agencies to check immigration status following any lawful contact, so my objection to a State law that does the same thing seems inconsistent? If so, then I fully agree that such Federal law (assuming there is one) is just as problematic on a theoretical level. On a practical level, of course, the AZ law is more of an issue simply because most contact with law enforcement happens on the State level. That said, the only reason I'm commenting on the AZ law and not the Federal one (again, assuming there is such a Federal law) is that the AZ law is in the news, and I have no prior knowledge of the Federal law.

Very, very few cases get thrown out on technicalities, Hop. The vast majority of cases result in plea bargains, and most of those that go to trial result in convictions. The truth is, unless you're of above-average intelligence and have a good lawyer, once you're in the system, your goose is probably cooked.

I think you're missing the point. Before this law, the legal immigrants could just keep their expensive documents locked up at home. Now they have to carry them everywhere. That's the problem. It's not a problem with them having to actually procure the documents, obviously, immigrants do need to have documentation. It's a problem with the requirement to carry them around everywhere at all times. A new drivers' license costs literally ten or fifteen dollars. Replacing the green card costs hundreds, plus a huge time investment and interrogation you become subject to. I don't object to them actually having to have documents, I object to them having to carry the $500 green card on their person everywhere they go. The hotel in Europe requires the passport on check-in. but after that you can put it in the safe in your room and do whatever. You don't have to carry it around on you. Even if you did, you're only keeping track of it for your one week vacation. When you go back home you don't need to carry it anymore.

This is nothing about disproportionately affecting an ethnic group. Are there substantially more Hispanic legal immigrants than legal immigrants of other races?



Do you actually need to carry those documents around everywhere? Or do you just need to have them in your hotel room, apartment, home, or whatever? There's a big difference.

This actually astounds me. I was informed by my immigration lawyer, who you think would know about this, specifically NOT to carry the green card around with me, that it would be a massive hassle and expense if I were to lose it and/or have it stolen.

Regardless of what others will think of this... what do you really think the country is since Lincoln deployed military troops against civilians during the civil war?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Officers should only be working within their authority.



Who are a significant portion of the population. I'm not for an us vs them with convicted felons either. Convict them, punish them, bring them back into society, but they are part of the reality of the population. I'm having a hard time explaining my view on this, but it's somewhere between tolerating crime and pitchforks/lynch mobs. It's never good to encourage one segment of the population to turn against another.

There is a segment of the population that should be wary of approaching the police... the criminal segment. Now, if you are coming from the position of police prejudice against law abiding residents, that is a different matter, and I agree, something that needs to be mitigated/eradicated. However, what you are suggesting is the equivalent of advocating the police ignore illegal activity because it might make those people less likely to talk to the police?[/quote]

Ignore, no, but not alienate the population. It is significant.



Yes, I agree, I think the focus on enforcing Fed laws is misplaced.

Here's an example, I'm sure it's more common than one would think:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

So now the phrase my foolish friends are siezing on is "lawful contact" and stating that can be anything to something as small as just walking up to say "hi." I'm pretty sure lawful contact is engagement for an enforcement/exercise of the law, but haven't found a good definition yet. Unfortunately, that phrase keeps popping up all over lefty blogs too so its poisoning the well.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Arathain:

Your position is rather untenable, as the Federal government is incapable of enforcing its own law. It is a logistical impossibility. More importantly, this is an area where the Federal government has absolutely failed in its duty to the citizens of the United States. We have two extremely porous borders that the government cares little about actually securing.

_________________