Judge blocks most controversial parts of AZ SB1070 law

[Ben Kenobi]

And I don't care about your idiotic strawmen, Ben. It's off-topic, pure and simple. You can invent motivations all you want, but it doesn't matter a whit as to whether or not Arizona's law passes Constitutional muster. I realize you only view the law as a tool to impose your personal beliefs on other people, but thankfully our system isn't designed that way.

Bob, bob, weave, dodge, dodge dodge. All you have to do to refute my 'strawman' is to answer the question.

Since we're impugning motives, I'll just guess the only reason you're concerned about illegal immigration at all is because of your racism against people who aren't white. Ta-da.

So only minorities are illegal immigrants? That's a racist sentiment, Boris. I think all immigration laws should be enforced fairly, and apply equally to all illegal immigrants, whether they be from Canada or Mexico. Pulling vehicles over who break the traffic laws is a fair assessment.

I am not an American, Boris. It is my privilege to be in your country when I have travelled here, not the other way around. I have the responsibility to obey the laws that your government has set out or be sent home.

I don't believe we should have one standard for minority immigrants and another for white immigrants.

Now, go ahead, Boris. answer the question here, or I'll start another thread and ask you the same question.

[Boris Godunov]

Just because someone who is a minority is pulled over doesn't mean that they were pulled over because of their race.

Didn't say otherwise. But there are cases where people do get pulled over just because of their race. Your all-or-nothing style of arguing is absurdly stupid.

How do you define 'racial profiling'? Is pulling a black person over sufficient to qualify as racial profiling?

No, don't be an idiot.

And so are Polytubbies subject to irrational biases about the police force.

There's nothing irrational about acknowledging the fact that not every case of the police stopping someone is going to be for valid reasons. That's just dumb to say otherwise.

Wow another lie. All the Arizona law says is that someone who is getting pulled over for breaking a law, traffic or otherwise, will be asked to show their papers. That's it. Here's the key. Obey the laws and you don't get pulled over.

No, it does not say that:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to
determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

The law does not require police to ask everyone for their papers if they stop them, so you once again have no clue what you're talking about. They only ask them for them if they "suspect" they are illegal. Again, what constitues suspicion of being illegal?

Speeding is sufficient evidence. Breaking any traffic law gives the police grounds to investigate further, to pull you over and request your papers.

No. How would speeding create "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal? Do only illegals speed? That's stupid.

And police can't search people's cars without permission or actual probable cause (see Knowles v. Iowa). Speeding or other traffic violations are not in and of themselves valid reasons. You fail again.

You'd be shocked at the proportion of cars which are driven by unlicensed drivers, and an inability to obey the rules of the road is a common characteristic of unlicensed drivers.

And the relevance of this is... what? Police can ask for a driver's license, no one has said otherwise. Driver's licenses != immigration papers, that's the point. If someone doesn't have a license, then they will be arrested for driving without one. You really have no clue what the argument here is.

And that ignores that the law isn't just about vehicle stops, it's for ANY stop, which can be on foot.

[Boris Godunov]

Reasonable suspicion is a concept that has been in US law since 1968. Someone bloviating about preemption should know about the concept.

Someone with sufficient reading comprehension would see that I'm asking someone else what HIS opinion is of what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

[Boris Godunov]

Now, go ahead, Boris. answer the question here, or I'll start another thread and ask you the same question.

Oh, please feel free to GTFO of my thread and start your own. In fact, I beg it of you. Do it now.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, don't be an idiot.

Then what is racial profiling. I sincerely doubt that cops pull people over and tell them that they are pulled over because they are black. Would you define it as cops being more likely to pull over a black man than a white man?

There's nothing irrational about acknowledging the fact that not every case of the police stopping someone is going to be for valid reasons.

You were arguing that allowing the cops to use their reasonable judgment is a bad thing because cops are bigots and racists, etc. That's irrational bias, which is present in everyone, including polytubbies.

I don't believe pulling somoene over for speeding and asking to see their license and papers is a bad thing. I think it should be expected.

A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to
determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

You miss those three words, Boris? Stopped, detained or arrested.

The law does not require police to ask everyone for their papers if they stop them, so you once again have no clue what you're talking about. They only ask them for them if they "suspect" they are illegal. Again, what constitues suspicion of being illegal?

They only refer to people who are already stopped, detained or arrested. Meaning, you only get pulled over if you are speeding, breaking traffic laws, etc.

I don't have a problem if they were to check everyone who was pulled over, and I think they should. I would surmise 'reasonable suspicion' would mean the following.

1, does the person have a license plate for AZ, and is his license up to date, is his insurance up to date?

Any of those three missing, or not present, well geez, that's reasonable suspicion right there.

No. How would speeding create "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal? Do only illegals speed? That's stupid.

No, but they are more likely to fail to obey traffic laws, and to speed when they see the police.

And police can't search people's cars without permission or actual probable cause (see Knowles v. Iowa). Speeding or other traffic violations are not in and of themselves valid reasons. You fail again.

Siilarity to a car already in pursuit is probable cause.

And the relevance of this is... what? Police can ask for a driver's license, no one has said otherwise. Driver's licenses != immigration papers, that's the point. If someone doesn't have a license, then they will be arrested for driving without one. You really have no clue what the argument here is.

My argument is that if you lack a driver's license, not only should you get arrested, you should get deported after they check into your immigration status.

And that ignores that the law isn't just about vehicle stops, it's for ANY stop, which can be on foot.

And why would the police stop you on foot?

Gosh, you've got this whole paranoid thing going on here. The only reason anyone would be detained on foot, is if they are robbing someone and get caught.

[Ben Kenobi]

Someone with sufficient reading comprehension would see that I'm asking someone else what HIS opinion is of what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

You seem pretty hysterical about this all Boris. Got anymore scenarios to concoct?

You are aware that there's some pretty nasty stuff going on out there by drug runners. Frankly, Arizonans feel they are under seige, and that the neglect by the federal government to secure the border has put them at the frontline of the drug war.

Maybe you've always lived in nice fancy neighbourhoods where that stuff doesn't happen, I don't know. The point is that the federal government has a duty to protect their citizens. This includes securing the border. It's right there in the constitution, Boris.

The people will take the law into their own hands if the Federal government blocks common-sense moves like this one, and I don't think that's going to be a pretty sight.

[Boris Godunov]

Are you going to start your own thread or not? If not, I'd still appreciate your ceasing your thread ****ting here.

[giblets]

I'm asking you a question, Boris.

Do you believe the federal government should enforce the immigration law as it stands, yes or no?

I'm not going to bother answering any of your other questions until you answer this one.

I'll answer that. Yes. However the state of Arizona should not.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll answer that. Yes. However the state of Arizona should not.

Thank you.

How about you, sir Boris?

[Boris Godunov]

Then what is racial profiling. I sincerely doubt that cops pull people over and tell them that they are pulled over because they are black. Would you define it as cops being more likely to pull over a black man than a white man?

Racial profiling in stops is a well-documented issue that the U.S. Dept. of Justice highlighted in the late 1990s as a problem. People have even defended the practice (On the same stupid logic you use to claim that illegals are "more likely" to commit traffic violations). Over 20 states passed explicit laws to ban it. So I don't think it needs to be pointed out that racial profiling happens.

You were arguing that allowing the cops to use their reasonable judgment is a bad thing because cops are bigots and racists, etc. That's irrational bias, which is present in everyone, including polytubbies.

First, no, I'm not saying cops are bigots, racists, etc. They can be, just like anyone else, sure. But I am saying that police *have* used racial profiling in the past. Furthermore, the AZ law is an invitation to racial profiling, based on it's "reasonable suspicion someone is illegal" language and the fact that law enforcement officials could be sued if people think they aren't doing enough to catch illegals.

I don't believe pulling somoene over for speeding and asking to see their license and papers is a bad thing. I think it should be expected.

Seeing their license, no. Seeing their "papers," yes. State police aren't supposed to be the Stasi.

You miss those three words, Boris? Stopped, detained or arrested.

And you miss the point, because you're incapable of understanding that being stopped for one thing does not in and of itself give probable cause to police to search for evidence of another thing. This is a very basic and decided constitutional issue. Being stopped for speeding does not give police the right to search you or your vehicle or do anything beyond cite you for the violation observed, which is speeding. A cop cannot pull you over for speeding and then search your vehicle without permission unless he has probable cause, and that probably cause has to be independent of the fact that you were speeding.

I don't have a problem if they were to check everyone who was pulled over, and I think they should. I would surmise 'reasonable suspicion' would mean the following.

I do, because it's unconstitutional, given cops must have probable cause

does the person have a license plate for AZ, and is his license up to date, is his insurance up to date?

Any of those three missing, or not present, well geez, that's reasonable suspicion right there.

Your definition of "reasonable suspicion" is absurd, then. How is having an out-of-state license plate in any way indicative a person has even committed a crime, much less is an illegal? Any court would laugh at that notion. If someone has an invalid license, as has been said already, then they can be arrested for driving without a valid license. That doesn't in any way indicate the person is here illegally, as any U.S. citizen can also get caught driving without a valid license. In my job I've encountered tons of perfectly legal U.S. residents who were convicted for driving without a valid license. Same thing goes with people being cited for not having insurance, as that again does not denote illegal status.

So no, those all fail to meet the threshhold of probable cause that the person is and illegal immigrant.

No, but they are more likely to fail to obey traffic laws, and to speed when they see the police.

and your proof of this is... ? This is profiling, by the way, which I thought you said cops don't do...

Siilarity to a car already in pursuit is probable cause.

What? How is that probably cause to inquire as to whether or not the driver is in the U.S. legally?

My argument is that if you lack a driver's license, not only should you get arrested, you should get deported after they check into your immigration status.

Regardless of your immigration status?

Seriously, that's not what the argument is. People can be arrested for driving without a license, that's fine. But local officials can't detain someone for not being able to prove their citizenship to them, and that's the issue. And states cannot deport them, that's for sure. Only the Federal Government can do that. If a state is able to detain someone for constitutional reasons and then refer them to the Dept. of Justice for investigation of their immigration status, that's fine. But they cannot detain them solely because they suspect or discover the individual is in the country illegally, and that's where the law runs afoul.

And why would the police stop you on foot?

Gosh, you've got this whole paranoid thing going on here. The only reason anyone would be detained on foot, is if they are robbing someone and get caught.

No. Loitering? Jaywalking? Littering? There are tons of reasons a cop might stop someone on foot besides robbery, you dolt. And why does someone doing any of those things give probable cause to the cop to ask them to prove their immigration status? Do only illegals jaywalk?

Really, you don't understand what's being argued here, so you need to just stop.

[Boris Godunov]

Thank you.

How about you, sir Boris?

Have I not said repeatedly that immigration is the domain of the Federal government, and that Arizona has no right to enforce it? I believe so.

I even offered the remedies states would need to take if they felt the Federal Government wasn't doing enough. So what's your beef?

I've still yet to hear how the Federal Government is failing in its enforcement of the law, however. Which Federal law(s) is it not enforcing?

[Guynemer]

Boris, I find life in general, and Apolyton in specific, to be far more relaxing and hypertension-reducing with our fine Canadian Jedi friend on ignore.

[Ben Kenobi]

Have I not said repeatedly that immigration is the domain of the Federal government, and that Arizona has no right to enforce it? I believe so.

That doesn't answer the question as to whether or not you believe that the law as worded ought to be enforced by the federal government.

I've still yet to hear how the Federal Government is failing in its enforcement of the law, however. Which Federal law(s) is it not enforcing?

I'll be happy to discuss it when you answer my simple, straightforward question.

[Boris Godunov]

No, but they are more likely to fail to obey traffic laws, and to speed when they see the police.

I just have to go back to the asburd stupidity of this. A drug dealer is also more likely to speed when he sees the police. So by BK's logic, if a cop pulls over anyone for speeding, he has probably cause to search his vehicle for drugs, just because he was speeding. There would be nothing a cop couldn't consider probable cause for anything else if BK's logic were applied.

No. This was decided a while ago by the Supreme Court. Probable cause to investigate another crime has to entail more than just the reason for the initial stop. Speeding only gives police cause to stop someone and issue them a speeding citation. They need more than that if they want to search a vehicle or investigate another crime.

[Boris Godunov]

That doesn't answer the question as to whether or not you believe that the law as worded ought to be enforced by the federal government.

"Law as worded?" I am hoping you meant to say that Federal Law ought to be enforced by the Federal Government, not that the Federal Government ought to be enforcing the Arizona law, which would be stupid.

And again, it's an utterly irrelevant question. The only reason to impugn my motives here is to do just that. Whether or not I want the Feds to enforce existing law doesn't matter one jot as to whether or not SB 1070 passes Constitutional muster, and that is the issue. Even if you were to prove that I was some sort of advocate for free-for-all immigration, that wouldn't magically render the Arizona law Constitutional. So your only reason to harp on this is to turn the debate into a personal attack. So get lost already.

I'll be happy to discuss it when you answer my simple, straightforward question.

Lectures from you about giving straightforward answers are hilarious.