Posted on 04/30/2010 4:27:18 AM PDT by tobyhill
Arizona's tough new illegal immigration enforcement law would not be right for Texas, Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday, upholding the state's long-held tradition of rejecting harsh anti-immigrant policies.
The Arizona law will require local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, making it a crime for them to lack registration documents. The law also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally.
"I fully recognize and support a state's right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas," Perry said in a written statement.
"For example, some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe."
The Arizona law has been hailed by conservatives as long overdue and two Texas lawmakers have said they'll introduce similar immigration measures when the Texas Legislature meets next. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that a Justice Department review is under way to determine the Arizona law's constitutionality.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
‘Take it a step further. Let’s say Home Depot doesn’t mind, which they don’t now, a congregation of Hispanic day laborers hanging out front, is that Loitering?
The new law now allows for that to be reasonable suspicion.’
Actually it does not, this law specifically forbids racial profiling. Therefore the “Hispanic” status of those hanging around is not admissable or relevant. If a private company doesn’t mind a group of individuals hanging around out front (which I believe they would, BTW) why is it that the police should get involved?
Hey Beret Boy, go try that crap in Mexico city!
“Another scenario you didn’t mention is where officers are allowed to bring in sniffer dogs...”
A drug dog or cop can only search the interior of a vehicle if you give them permission or if they have “probable cause”, which is to say that they have some specific evidence that points to you having drugs in the vehicle. For instance, if you are stopped for running a redlight and the cop spots a joint in the ashtray, the cop has “probable cause” to do a full search without your approval. The drug dog can sniff outside the vehicle without a warrant, but the courts have been pretty divided on whether or not the dog detecting something provides the necessary “probable cause”.
“I lean towards a freer society with more personal responsibility. If someone tries to burglarize your house, shoot ‘em.”
On this point, I fully agree with you.
“How did the cops know the guy was wearing black inside his car BTW? Maybe he was just a cautious driver..”
The cops would not necessarily know the driver was wearing black unless the car came close to the cops or was pulled over. I was just using it as an example. Yes, the driver may just be cautious or lost, but in that case the cop will just pull the person over, verify ID and purpose, and then help the lost driver or just let them go. However, when a car drives around a neighborhood several times, late at night, very rarely is it due to the driver being cautious or lost. Most home burglars are actually caught either leaving the scene of the crime or scouting out a location for a new crime. The cops will usually first run the license plate of the vehicle to determine if the vehicle is from that area. If the vehicle is from another nearby suburb then the red flags will go off as to why the vehicle is driving slowly in a neighbor, far from home, and late at night.
Also, most cops may be suspicious of the car, but do not immediately pull a gun on the car once it is stopped. The cops will cautiously approach the car and then politely ask for ID and purpose. If it is an innocent driver then the cops will be friendly and let them go. If suspicion was not a factor in trying to catch criminals then no criminals would ever be caught since most are not actually caught in act.
“The Fourth Amendment is being roundly abused...”
I agree that the 4th can be abused, however a cop can’t conduct a search based solely on “reasonable suspicion”, which is the burden of proof described in the AZ law. A search can only be conducted based on “probable cause” that a crime occurred. This is a higher burden of proof that requires some type of evidene to pursue. However, just asking for identification and/or general purpose does not constitute a search under the law or the Constitution. It also is not considered to be any type of detention. Now if a person refuses to self identify, depending on the circumstances, that could be considered “probable cause” and reason for a search or possible arrest.
Texas Law Enforcement Agencies, Local PD’s, State DPS Troopers tried cranking down years ago only to watch immigration officials turn them out within days of the arrest. State and local agencies can’t “FIX” the problem until federal immigration laws are changed. Feds aren’t sounding like they’re onboard to me. So vote them out in November - elect legislators who back up the boots on the ground.
“Aren’t all violations of federal law considered violations of state and local law. I recall when a municipal police officer in the 50’s arresting several persons for the feds. I believe today’s police do the same. “
We are a long way from the 50’s for sure.
Sanctuary city policies forbid any police officer from enforcing immigration law.
The only time you can get arrested for "just standing around" is if you are loitering (example, hanging on the street corner soliciting work).
Could be, and based on your comment you must be 12.
Is your lack of humor attributable to genetics? lol
“Ariz. Gov Signs Bill Revising New Immigration Law
Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state’s sweeping law against illegal immigration — changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.
...
The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.
Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer’s stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a “contact” with police.
Another change specifies that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-governor-signs-revising-new-immigration-law/
So, these revisions lay to rest any concerns I had - which were apparently justified. I think in it’s new form the law is entirely reasonable. :-)
Actually it’s called legal CYA for dummies. Anyone that read the law could tell what was being said, this just says the same thing in another way. I don’t think those claifications were needed but apparently they had to be reiterated for the moron press and the troublemakers.
Let us hope that those who seem to make it their business to object to US sovereignty feel as you do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.