'Arizona Style' Immigration Law Proposed in Texas

[UtahBill]

What the police officer is supposed to be verifying is that:

• Your driver's license is valid

If they opt to check local law enforcement databases to make sure you're not a wanted fugative, I can dig that, but that's not supposed to be why they pulled you over.

At any rate, citizenship is not in any way shape or form the business of local authorities. Residency, yes. Citizenship, no.

so instead of rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants, we can round up and deport illegal residents, right? works for me...

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

so instead of rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants, we can round up and deport illegal residents, right? works for me...

:lol:

No.

When I'm talking about residency, I'm just talking about proving to the local authorities that you've lived within a certain geographic area long enough (to have theoretically paid taxes long enough) to justify in-state tuition at a state or community college, as an example.

 

[Technocrat]

Is this one written by private prison companies too?

Prison Companies?
Last I knew the AZ law was written (or at least co-authored) by Constitutional Attorney Kris Koback. You'll have to show documentation of such a claim before I will buy into it.

 

[Technocrat]

What the police officer is supposed to be verifying is that:

• Your driver's license is valid

If they opt to check local law enforcement databases to make sure you're not a wanted fugative, I can dig that, but that's not supposed to be why they pulled you over.

At any rate, citizenship is not in any way shape or form the business of local authorities. Residency, yes. Citizenship, no.

I hate to burst your bubble, but if you are here illegally, you ARE a criminal. I you are here illegally & not in custody, you ARE a fugitive.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I hate to burst your bubble, but if you are here illegally, you ARE a criminal. I you are here illegally & not in custody, you ARE a fugitive.

You're missing my whole point.

They're only supposed to give a damn if your license is valid. If they check anything beyond making sure there isn't an outstanding warrant with your name on it, they're going too far.

 

[Technocrat]

You're missing my whole point.

They're only supposed to give a damn if your license is valid. If they check anything beyond making sure there isn't an outstanding warrant with your name on it, they're going too far.

Under that simplistic interpretation if the driver or his car was covered in blood the officer would have to look the other way unless there was a warrant out for him.

Actually it is their duty to enforce all the laws. If drugs are a problem in their area, they need to look for signs of abuse or trafficking, if illegals are a problem in their area they need to check immigration status of people who legitimately cause him to suspect that they may be illegal.

He is duty bound to check out anyone who makes him legitimately suspicious of any wrong doing.

A police officers first duty is to protect the public. That means enforcing all the laws in his jurisdiction.

One example would be Timothy McVeigh. He was caught before he was even a suspect in the bombing because his actions made an Oklahoma Trooper legitimately suspicious so he was arrested instead of just receiving ticket when he did not have a legitimate tag on his car. There were no warrants out for him at the time. It was up to the officers discretion whether to pick him up or just cite him. Normally an officer prefers to just write the citation when he can because an arrest:

1. Is more dangerous to the officer.
2. Has more potential legal liability.
3. Involves a lot of paperwork which keeps him off the street.

McVeigh was still being held awaiting a bond hearing when his description was sent out.

 

[Cephus]

What the police officer is supposed to be verifying is that:

• Your driver's license is valid

If they opt to check local law enforcement databases to make sure you're not a wanted fugative, I can dig that, but that's not supposed to be why they pulled you over.

At any rate, citizenship is not in any way shape or form the business of local authorities. Residency, yes. Citizenship, no.

Obviously, an illegal isn't going to have a driver's license and driving without a license in most areas is a crime in and of itself. Of course they shouldn't pull you over for no reason, but in the process of writing you a ticket for a legitimate crime, verifying your identity is essential. Your legal status is part of your identity.

 

[Technocrat]

Obviously, an illegal isn't going to have a driver's license and driving without a license in most areas is a crime in and of itself.

Sadly that is not the case. Washington, New Mexico and Utah allow them to get licenses without proof of citizenship or residency. Several others including Kansas have only started started verifying documentation in the last few years,

Of course they shouldn't pull you over for no reason, but in the process of writing you a ticket for a legitimate crime, verifying your identity is essential. Your legal status is part of your identity.

Very true. One of the things I like about the Arizona law it that is specifies in the legislation that stops are not to be just made for the purpose of verifying immigration status.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Under that simplistic interpretation if the driver or his car was covered in blood the officer would have to look the other way unless there was a warrant out for him.

Oh. For ****'s. Sake.

Well, if you want to go that route, I guess I also forgot to mention what a police officer should do if he pulls over someone who is raping a child while driving, transporting a nuclear bomb, wearing a vest studded with explosives or cramming a gun into the neck of a screaming passenger.

:lol:

If the officer sees something which is very obviously suspicious, or sees something lying in plain sight which makes the hairs on the back of his neck stand up, or if the driver seems to be behaving oddly, then I would expect him to investigate.

I'm talking about verifying the citizenship of whatever random yahoo that gets pulled over as a part of the routine. That's the job of the Federal authorities and nobody else.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Are the illegals sitting in private prisons?

Or are they turned over to the INS for deportation?

If there was a mandated prison term for breaking the immigration laws, and those being held for that charge were in private prisons, then I might think that your claim has merit. But since 99.99% are held in INS facilities until they are returned to their home country, your claim is nothing but coprolite.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

What in the world does any of that have to do with whether or not it is either police officer's job or within the proper authority of a police officer to check on someone's citizenship?

 

[Technocrat]

Oh. For ****'s. Sake.

Well, if you want to go that route, I guess I also forgot to mention what a police officer should do if he pulls over someone who is raping a child while driving, transporting a nuclear bomb, wearing a vest studded with explosives or cramming a gun into the neck of a screaming passenger.

:lol:

If the officer sees something which is very obviously suspicious, or sees something lying in plain sight which makes the hairs on the back of his neck stand up, or if the driver seems to be behaving oddly, then I would expect him to investigate.

I'm talking about verifying the citizenship of whatever random yahoo that gets pulled over as a part of the routine. That's the job of the Federal authorities and nobody else.

No, it is not, and never has been. I did a short stint as a cop way back in the dark ages & immigration violation is one of the things we were trained to look for.
ICE cannot do it all themselves. Until the current administration they were not shy in admitting it.
One beauty of the Arizona Law is that it prohibits checking just any random yahoo. The suspect has to give the officer a reasonable suspicion that he (or she) is illegal. It also prohibits stops just so the officer can run an immigration check.
The main change to existing law is that the new statute just makes the check mandatory if he is already suspicious.

 

[Cephus]

Sadly that is not the case. Washington, New Mexico and Utah allow them to get licenses without proof of citizenship or residency. Several others including Kansas have only started started verifying documentation in the last few years,

Then screw those states. The rest, however, don't have that problem.

Very true. One of the things I like about the Arizona law it that is specifies in the legislation that stops are not to be just made for the purpose of verifying immigration status.

Yet the illegal alien coddlers are still screaming about it. If you make the law require that all stops verify immigration status regardless of who they stop, there's no way anyone can rationally claim discrimination, etc. But then again, these illegal alien coddlers aren't rational to begin with, are they?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

No, it is not, and never has been. I did a short stint as a cop way back in the dark ages & immigration violation is one of the things we were trained to look for.

You're not quite catching what I'm pitching.

I fully understand that police officers in some (or who knows, maybe all) jurisdictions have been tasked with looking for immigration violations.

What I'm saying is that it's not their job. Border control and related responsibilities are the sole responsibility of the Federal government. Yes, they've been falling on their face. No, that doesn't mean we should be handing off the job.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Yet the illegal alien coddlers are still screaming about it. If you make the law require that all stops verify immigration status regardless of who they stop, there's no way anyone can rationally claim discrimination, etc. But then again, these illegal alien coddlers aren't rational to begin with, are they?

I'm sick and tired of complete and total ****tards giving my government and its agents more and more power in the name of making things safer.

I don't want the cops to be able to ask me for proof of citizenship when they stop me for speeding, much less anybody else.

 

[Technocrat]

Then screw those states. The rest, however, don't have that problem.

The problem is actually growing. There are a lot of falsified papers being used to obtain "legitimate" DL's. And it is not just Hispanics, we just hear the most about them.
If the "coddlers" can make it look like all efforts are targeted against one group they can justify (to themselves at least) calling citizens who believe in the rule of law "Racist", even though Hispanics are not a race unto themselves. They are actually Caucasian.

Yet the illegal alien coddlers are still screaming about it. If you make the law require that all stops verify immigration status regardless of who they stop, there's no way anyone can rationally claim discrimination, etc. But then again, these illegal alien coddlers aren't rational to begin with, are they?

Not in my experience.

 

[Technocrat]

You're not quite catching what I'm pitching.

I fully understand that police officers in some (or who knows, maybe all) jurisdictions have been tasked with looking for immigration violations.

What I'm saying is that it's not their job. Border control and related responsibilities are the sole responsibility of the Federal government. Yes, they've been falling on their face. No, that doesn't mean we should be handing off the job.

I am catching what you are pitching. I just strenuously disagree. It is their job, and always has been.
If they deliberately turn their head & look the other way they become accessories after the fact and are then just as guilty as the offender.
It is not my jurisdiction is not a valid argument. Jurisdiction only defines where police officers actively patrol, not which laws they enforce.

 

[Technocrat]

I'm sick and tired of complete and total ****tards giving my government and its agents more and more power in the name of making things safer.

I don't want the cops to be able to ask me for proof of citizenship when they stop me for speeding, much less anybody else.

So we just open the borders & stop trying?

Remember, they are only supposed to ask if you give them reason to be suspicious. If you do not want asked, do not act in a suspicious manner.
Get rid of that old Ford Lobo with expired Mexican plates.

I do not like being stopped for speeding in the first place, but I deal with it. My remedy is to be conscientious about not speeding. I would rather drive fast, but I don't.
If illegals do not want picked up during a traffic stop they can go home. I can guarantee an illegal will not be stopped by an Arizona Trooper if he goes back to his own country.

 

[Cephus]

I'm sick and tired of complete and total ****tards giving my government and its agents more and more power in the name of making things safer.

I don't want the cops to be able to ask me for proof of citizenship when they stop me for speeding, much less anybody else.

Then don't speed and nobody will be asking you for your ID. Problem solved. However, you are bound by the laws of the city, state and nation in which you live, like it or not. Deal with reality.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Then don't speed and nobody will be asking you for your ID. Problem solved.

No, problem not solved. A police officer can argue that my below-limit speed is not reasonable or prudent for the road conditions and pull me over for that. Or he can argue that I brushed the line marking the shoulder.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

So we just open the borders & stop trying?

No. As I've been saying, it's the Federal government's job. The fact that I'm pissed with the Feds for falling on their face isn't going to convince me to throw local authorities at the problem.

Remember, they are only supposed to ask if you give them reason to be suspicious. If you do not want asked, do not act in a suspicious manner.

That's a fairly popular argument for expansion of the government's authority in general. That doesn't make it a good argument.

 

[Cephus]

No, problem not solved. A police officer can argue that my below-limit speed is not reasonable or prudent for the road conditions and pull me over for that. Or he can argue that I brushed the line marking the shoulder.

My, paranoid aren't we?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

No.

Experienced.

 

[Technocrat]

No.

Experienced.

Hmmm....

I have been driving for almost 40 years & have driven in or through about 30 different states. I have yet to be pulled over for going at or under the limit.

Just lucky I guess.

 

[Technocrat]

No. As I've been saying, it's the Federal government's job. The fact that I'm pissed with the Feds for falling on their face isn't going to convince me to throw local authorities at the problem.

Almost right. It is the Feds job to deport them.
It is all law enforcement agencies job to pick them up if they find them, and it always has been. It is just that the problem has grown so much in the last 10 or 15 years it has become more obvious. Making it a state felony to be an illegal just gives the individual states another tool for when People like Ms. Janet at Homeland Security decide they are not going to do their job, as she has.

That's a fairly popular argument for expansion of the government's authority in general. That doesn't make it a good argument.

No, just an explanation of the statute.
Did your state require you to prove legal residency status when you got your license? If so, did it piss you off this bad? There really is no difference.