Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Gov: Arizona Immigration Law 'Not Right' for Texas (No Perry! It is RIGHT and is needed!)
fox news ^ | 4/30/2010 | ap

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: PreciousLiberty

According to the AZ law, the cops have to have “reasonable suspicion” that the person broke the law by being in the U.S. illegally before the cop can check the status of the person.

This is not any different than the cops pulling over a guy, dressed in black, driving really slow in a neighborhood that he does not live in (the cops will run the plates to determine where the suspicious vehicle is from), especially if there have been reports of burglaries in the neighborhood recently. The cops will pull the vehicle over and verify that the driver is not breaking any laws based on the “reasonable suspicion” that the driver is not where he should be and may be casing the neighborhood. Based on the answers and ID given by the driver, the cops will either have “probable cause” to search the vehicle and/or arrest the driver or let the driver go.

Cops also will usually check the ID and question a dressed up woman standing on a busy street corner late at night due to a “reasonable suspicion” that this woman may be a prostitute. Based on the answers and ID given by the woman, the cops will either have “probable cause” to search and/or arrest the woman or just let her go.

So if a cop sees a person that is acting suspicious (like standing on a corner pandering for day labor or evading the cops) then the cops have “reasonable suspicion” to question the person. If, based on the answer and ID provided by the person, the cops determine that the person is here illegally (i.e. breaking the law) then the cops have “probable cause” to arrest the illegal, but if the person proves to be a citizen AND is not breaking any other law then the cops will let him go.

So as you can see, the “reasonable suspicion” burden of proof is used in many aspects of law enforcement and is not restricted to just illegal alien identification. If a cop can’t question a suspicious person that may be breaking the law by being in the U.S. illegally then why would a cop be able to question anyone for any other potential crimes? The AZ law is legal and valid for this situation.


41 posted on 04/30/2010 6:23:09 AM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

If it walks like an illegal, talks like an illegal, it probably is an illegal.
If an officer walks up to a group of Hispanics hanging out in front of a Home Depot and the officer ask a couple of them, “where do you live?” and they reply, “over there”, in Spanish, that is reasonable suspicion because first they are loitering and second “over there” is not an answer worthy of eliminating reasonable suspicion. The reason they don’t give a real address is in fear of ratting out the 50 other illegals living in one house or apartment.


42 posted on 04/30/2010 6:26:00 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

“Interesting that you cite CNN in your defense.”

CNN is a major news network and that was the first article I ran across searching for relevant material. If you prefer, here is a direct quote from Fox News:

“Critics have called Arizona officials racist, intolerant and downright unconstitutional for passing the law, which makes illegal immigration a state crime and allows police to demand documentation from anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant.”

Note that it doesn’t say “anyone they’ve apprehended that they suspect is an illegal immigrant.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/border-states-dealing-illegal-immigrant-crime-data-suggests/

I do thank you for linking the actual language of the statute. I’m not a lawyer (and once again after trying to read it I’m glad), but I believe the sticky part is:

“B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).”

I don’t believe “lawful contact” is confined to the situation where the officer believes the law has been violated. Any attorneys care to comment?


43 posted on 04/30/2010 6:26:35 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty (In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Amen to that!


44 posted on 04/30/2010 6:27:14 AM PDT by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

‘If an officer walks up to a group of Hispanics hanging out in front of a Home Depot and the officer ask a couple of them, “where do you live?” and they reply, “over there”, in Spanish, that is reasonable suspicion because first they are loitering and second “over there” is not an answer worthy of eliminating reasonable suspicion.’

Loitering is a crime, no? In that situation the officers could demand ID of anyone under current statutes. So, there would be no need of ‘reasonable suspicion’, if the ID doesn’t show legal status, deport ‘em. The only change needed would be state enforcement of immigration law, as I said above.

As is often the case, if existing laws were enforced new ones would be unnecessary.


45 posted on 04/30/2010 6:29:48 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty (In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Thanks Rick with a P. I want all the money I’ve ever paid for speeding tickets back. We either enforce the law or we don’t.


46 posted on 04/30/2010 6:33:55 AM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

I am 56 years old and have lived in two widely differing states. In neither state was I EVER contacted officially by a law enforcement officer when there was not clear information indicating that I had violated a statute of one kind or another. I have never heard of it happening to anyone else (it would certainly have made the news in CA or NC, they’re alike in that respect). I also await lawyer response on this, but I’m pretty sure the text you cite is the text which confines estimating reasonability for legal status to situations where the officer has detained the individual for some other clearly evident violation and, in the course of contact, becomes convinced that a material possiblity exists that the person being detained is neither a legal resident nor legal resident alien.

And note, even if there is evidence that lawful contact is permitted without having to have proximate suspicion of lawbreaking, that means that there already was such a provision totally unrelated to the present case.

It would also mean that Federal law also permitted such contact. From all I understand, to actually contact someone requires at least visible evidence of law-breaking or a subpoena signed by a judge.

And after all that foo foo raw is over it still remains: I have to carry positive identifiction wherever I go. If detained I can (and almost certainly will) be required to display that identification and wait while the officer checks it against known databases for various conditions of interest. Are you suggesting that people who are most likely to be truly felony violators be exempt from a condition to which I, a citizen supposedly presumed innocent, am subject?


47 posted on 04/30/2010 6:36:42 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (Ey, Paolo! uh-Clem just broke the Presideng...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
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.
48 posted on 04/30/2010 6:37:29 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TXDuke

Thanks for a well thought out reply.

Believe it or not, I’m not in favor of any of the scenarios you mention either. How did the cops know the guy was wearing black inside his car BTW? Maybe he was just a cautious driver..

I lean towards a freer society with more personal responsibility. If someone tries to burglarize your house, shoot ‘em.

Another scenario you didn’t mention is where officers are allowed to bring in sniffer dogs because they think someone is “suspicious”. It’s another situation ripe for abuse, especially since almost all money has drug residue on it. You might view things differently after the interior of your car has been ripped apart looking for nonexistent drugs because a cop is having a bad hair day.

The Fourth Amendment is being roundly abused, and I strongly feel police power should be focused on actual criminal situations rather than fishing expeditions. Your mileage may of course vary. ;-)


49 posted on 04/30/2010 6:44:37 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty (In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
“...The law also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. ...”

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.

50 posted on 04/30/2010 7:04:50 AM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Well, you see, Perry no longer has to worry about a primary challenge, so he can go back to being an amnesty supporter.


51 posted on 04/30/2010 7:09:25 AM PDT by zeugma (Waco taught me everything I needed to know about the character of the U.S. Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
“...The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times ...”

When an immigrant is issued a “green card,” he is told he/she must have the card in their possession at all times. It is already a federal law to carry it.

52 posted on 04/30/2010 7:12:24 AM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GoCards

the reason Texas is so screwed, is that it is well known that you can’t win statewide office as a dem. I don’t believe there is a single dem holding an at-large state-wide position. So, the dems “change parties” and pretend to be pubbies. The media backs them, because they know they can’t lose when they own both sides of the race. So, you end up with pols who talk like conservatives during the election, and vote like democrats afterwards.


53 posted on 04/30/2010 7:13:00 AM PDT by zeugma (Waco taught me everything I needed to know about the character of the U.S. Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
The idea that police can demand papers if there is a “reasonable” suspicion someone is illegal is too vague and open to abuse.

Wrong. This law will only affect illegal alien scum NOT Americans.

54 posted on 04/30/2010 7:13:37 AM PDT by Eaker (Pablo is very wily)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Buh-bye, Rick! You’ll protect your dog from a coyote but NOT the LEGAL citizens of Texas from human coyotes?!?!

Kiss your re-election good bye. Yeah, there’s a big block of hispanic and ILLEGAL voters out there—don’t think they make up enough of a percentage to keep your day job though!

What do we know about Bill White’s view on illegal immigration??? (said half-seriously knowing that Houston is a sanctuary city)


55 posted on 04/30/2010 7:15:17 AM PDT by pillut48 ("Stand now. Stand together. Stand for what is right."-Gov.Sarah Palin, "Going Rogue" ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
Sorry, CNN is not a credible source on this. I haven't taken the time to read through the bill myself, but from what I've heard so far, immigration status checks are a secondary charge.
56 posted on 04/30/2010 7:16:30 AM PDT by zeugma (Waco taught me everything I needed to know about the character of the U.S. Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long
RickPerry.org Contact Page
Office of TX Governor Rick Perry Contact Page

Just sent off emails to both sites, expressing my disappointment in Governor Perry's stance on the Arizona/illegal alien laws, and that he's lost my vote UNLESS something changes. >:-(
57 posted on 04/30/2010 7:22:25 AM PDT by pillut48 ("Stand now. Stand together. Stand for what is right."-Gov.Sarah Palin, "Going Rogue" ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

You’ve been spun by media misinformation. In fact, the AZ bill does what you propose,no more, no less.


58 posted on 04/30/2010 7:33:10 AM PDT by WOSG (OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bigredkitty1

Urge your Governor to Support Tough Immigration Enforcement Legislation

You can find this fax by proceeding to
http://www.numbersusa.com/faxes?ID=12221


59 posted on 04/30/2010 7:34:56 AM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

Did the same, here.


60 posted on 04/30/2010 7:51:03 AM PDT by Jane Long (America, while you were sleeping the Socialists took over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson