In Which Mitch Finally Gets Into Internet Shopping
By Mitch Berg
Never more than a degree behind the liberal fashion curve, Saint Paul mayor Chris Coleman ordered a boycott of city-funded travel to Arizona:
[Arizona’s new immigrtion law], “rooted in hate and fear,” sets a dangerous example, Coleman said.
“It will create a culture where racial profiling is acceptable and will create a dangerous wedge between police officers and the communities they serve,” Coleman said. “I can’t imagine what it would have been like for my grandmother had they passed a similar anti-Irish law.
But we can, Mayor Coleman – because your grandmother came here legally. Just like my great-grandparents.
“Today I choose to stand with the millions of immigrants in our city and across the country who should have access to the same level of safety and opportunity as everyone else.”
Illegal immigrants?
Coleman said he would write to the Democratic and Republican national committees, urging them not to choose Phoenix as a site for national conventions in 2012.
If you care to help out Arizona companies who facing getting hit with financial losses because of the anti-sovereignty bigotry of a few well-heeled lefty governments, here’s a list of companies from Arizona.
April 29th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Galco Gunleather!
April 29th, 2010 at 7:44 am
[…] And Shot in the Dark urges you to “help out Arizona companies who facing getting hit with financial losses because of the anti-sovereig….” […]
April 29th, 2010 at 8:06 am
We have to stop helping the Left that continually conflates legal and illegal immigration. Immigration is a process. Those who engage in that process are called immigrants. Thus, legal immigration is redundant and there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
Challenge anybody ncluding Republicans that use the terms like illegal immigrant or undocumented worker. You are a citizen, immigrant, alien (documented e.g. Visa, green card), or an illegal alien. Each has its own privileges, responsibilities – and consequences.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:28 am
I’ve read the bill, and both sides are making political hay, here. But maybe one of our esteemed attorney’s can help me. Here is the clause that makes me very uncomfortable about this legislation:
=
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).
=
So what is the difference between ‘reasonable suspicion’ and “probable cause”.
Is someone who is Hispanic, living near the border, and legally and lawfully here, going to be subject to unlawful search and seizure because as a Latino near the border that is enough for ‘reasonable suspicion’?
Especially in times of economic tumult, we need to make sure that those here, taking jobs, are here legally and lawfully and certainly not displacing legal and lawful employees who are waiting to work.
Marty Seifert was wise to not embrace this law and only saw it was a ‘step in the right direction’ I am not sure that is necessarily the case, etiher.
So someone define for me ‘reasonable suspicion’ and explain to me why a legal and lawful citizen in AZ now should carry a passport and/or birth certificate just to prove their citizenship in the state the live in.
Flash
PDF of Bill:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
From the Senate AZ Fact Sheet:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm
Enforcement
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.
2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.
3. Requires an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or local law to be transferred immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.
4. Allows a law enforcement agency to securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is in the agency’s custody to:
a) a federal facility in this state or
b) any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.
5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.
6. Prohibits officials or agencies of the state and political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining an individual’s immigration status information or exchanging that information with any other governmental entity for the following official purposes:
a) determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state;
b) verifying any claim of residence or domicile if that verification is required under state law or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in the state;
c) confirming a detainee’s identity; and
d) if the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with federal alien registration laws.
7. Disallows officials or agencies of the state or political subdivisions from adopting or implementing policies that limit immigration enforcement to less than the full extent permitted by federal law, and allows a person to bring an action in superior court to challenge an official or agency that does so.
8. Requires the court, if there is a judicial finding that an entity has committed a violation, to order any of the following:
a) that the plaintiff recover court costs and attorney fees;
b) that the defendant pay a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of the action.
9. Requires the court to collect and remit the civil penalty to the Department of Public Safety (DPS), which must establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) appropriation.
10. Specifies that law enforcement officers are indemnified by their agencies against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this statute to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:34 am
The aritcle states that little or no city travel was planned to Arizona anyway. So you have to wonder, all the pissed of people that will avoid St Paul will cost that city a heck of a lot more than Arizona will lose from city employees taking junkets there.
Example. I’ve heard Petsmart is HQ’d in Arizona. So instead of going to Petco in Highland Park, I shall go to Petsmart in the suburbs this weekend.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:09 am
I hate bringing this example up again, but it does illustrate unintended consequences of ill-conceived boycotts so well.
When Exxon Valdeze ran aground, the environmentalist’s call for boycott of Exxon gas stations was very well heeded indeed. People run from Exxon-branded gas stations elsewhere, to hit those environment-destroying capitalist pigs where it hurts – on the bottom line. Well, Exxon’s profits soared. You see, when everybody ran from Exxon, by default, large portion of them ended up buying their gas from independent retailers. And 7/11 at that time was the largest gasoline retailer in the States, and – you guessed it – Exxon had the contract to supply their gas.
Just to show how moronic and ill-conceived these boycotts are, there is a call to boycott AriZona beverage. It would have taken these Idiots (for there is no other way to describe these morons) 30 seconds to find out that Arizona beverage company started in Brooklyn, NY and is still based there.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:11 am
So someone define for me ‘reasonable suspicion’ and explain to me why a legal and lawful citizen in AZ now should carry a passport and/or birth certificate just to prove their citizenship in the state the live in.
They won’t have to, Flash. A driver’s license or state ID card would be sufficient. ID cards are available for something like $4. That shouldn’t be too burdensome — it’s certainly less burdensome than requiring a person to provide proof they’ve purchased health insurance.
And the key isn’t “reasonable suspicion.” The key is “lawful contact.” There are very strict standards about lawful contact and every officer in the state certainly realizes that if they are even slightly hinky about that, they’ll be looking at lawsuits, depositions and likely the loss of their career and reputation. I’m guessing that the police will be very scrupulous, probably more than they are now.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Flash, why did you post such a reasonable comment here and then make a complete ass of yourself at MDE?
Here’s a tip: Unplug the computer before you sit down to guzzle a batch of moonbat kool-aid.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Flash:
Probable cause = predicate to arrest (i.e. you need to have probable cause a crime has been committed to make a warrentless arrest. For example, seeing someone break a window of a home and crawl through it.
Reasonable suspicion, I think, pertains to searches after an arrest has been effected. The example here being: a cop pulls a guy over for speeding and when the perp opens the car door window, pot smoke billows out. The cop then has reasonable suspicion that there may be pot in the car and can search it without a warrant.
That distinction (if I’m correct) is key to the critical language in the blurb you quote from 11-1051, “Lawful contact”. That term is not defined in Arizona Revised Statutes. However, given the context, I think it may mean a search or arrest pursuant to probable cause. Meaning that the mandate for cops to make a “reasonable effort” to ascertain a person’s immigration status (based on a “reasonable suspicion” of illegality) only kicks in if the person is stopped or arrsted for the violation of some other law.
That said, if I’m wrong and “lawful contact” means merely a cop ambling up to some browish dude with an accent and saying “hey, how ya’ doin’? Papers please,” then this law is repulsive, and proably unconstitutional.
If my interpretation is correct, then a lot of people are getting their panties in a wad over nothing.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Tom, the MDE comment was first. I write to the readers LOL And that comment isn’t that much different then what is here.
Still would like someone to answer the question, though. What is the difference between ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause.’ ?
April 29th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Thanks Foot. Someone did send me this:
==
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person
has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on
specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an
investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than
probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable
suspicion is evaluated using the “reasonable person” or “reasonable officer”
standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably
believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal
activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely
on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons,
but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even
if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable
suspicion.
Precedent In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be
stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion.
Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on
unreasonable searches and seizure. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District
Court of Nevada the court further established that a state may require, by
law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop.
An arrest is not permitted based on reasonable suspicion; probable cause is
required for an arrest. Further, a person is not required to answer any
other questions during a Terry stop, and the detention must be brief.
==
“”That said, if I’m wrong and “lawful contact” means merely a cop ambling up to some browish dude with an accent and saying “hey, how ya’ doin’? Papers please,” then this law is repulsive, and probably unconstitutional.””
I certainly agree, here. If they would have stuck with Probably cause I may have been more comfortable with this bill, but ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ seems to give way too much leeway tot he officer on the scene.
April 29th, 2010 at 10:43 am
“‘Reasonable Suspicion’ seems to give way too much leeway tot he officer on the scene.”
Not if it’s after an arrest has been made pursuant to probable cause. Then it’s not a whole lot different than a cop running the name of a guy caught speeding for outstanding warrants. But like I said, the language of that clause is not clear (perhaps by necessity, as it applies to more than just law enforcement).
April 29th, 2010 at 11:08 am
What’s the point in issuing an immigrant a Green Card if no one is allowed to check it?
April 29th, 2010 at 11:11 am
To demonstrate how far out into the woods the drafting of this statute has led us: a Westlaw search for the phrase “lawful contact” across all of Arizona Statutes returns one hit (an irrelevant annotation). Same search with “legitimate contact” returns zero hits.
April 29th, 2010 at 11:23 am
“What’s the point in issuing an immigrant a Green Card if no one is allowed to check it?”
US Citizens don’t have to carry a green card, they are citizens. And it appears, now, becuase of the color of someone’s skin, they have to carry proof of citizenship, and I find that difficult to accept.
My concern is not how this effects illegals, for the sake of argument I am pretty much in agreement with most of you on the Right side of the aisle. My concern is the effect on US Citizens who aren’t WASPs and will have a different set of identification standards thrust on them. Shouldn’t that be the concern of anyone who claims to be ‘Strict Constitutionalists”?
April 29th, 2010 at 11:44 am
So Mayor Coleman is calling for economic sanctions against AZ? Let’s look at the historical record to see how successful sanctions are. Cuba? Fidel still runs the show. Iraq? It took six hard years after the end of sanctions. Iran? They are building a nuclear bomb. North Korea? Ditto.
This is why liberals are so successful in foreign policy, among other things.
April 29th, 2010 at 11:51 am
US Citizens don’t have to carry a green card, they are citizens. And it appears, now, becuase of the color of someone’s skin, they have to carry proof of citizenship, and I find that difficult to accept.
You’ve never traveled outside North America, have you flashy? USA and Canada are probably the only countries in the world that do not expect their visitors and citizens to carry ID with them at all times. Ever tried booking a hotel room in Taiwan, or Brussels, or St. Petersburg, or Paris, or Buenos Aires, or Rio – well, you get an idea, – without showing your passport? And before you even ask, I normally travel with locals and not once did they not have to do the same – no matter where in the world we were. Oh, and how about random checkpoints around the world where you are stopped at any time, for no reason whatsoever, and you have to produce valid ID – and most times driver’s license is not sufficient? So, what exactly is wrong with having a valid ID on your person, citizen or not?
Oh, and last thing – if we did not have an illegal immigration problem, I agree – US citizens would not have to burden themselves with an ID. I am sure you do agree, flashy, that Arizona should be able to curb their illegal immigration problem because federal government won’t.
April 29th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Flash, if you get pulled over or stopped for a violation and do not have a valid ID, what happens to you? Regardless of your skin color?
April 29th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
The talk of having to carry ID or green cards is irrelevant. The plain language of the statute requires the state / local agency to determine immigration status. The urden here is on the government to determine illegality, not ffor the indiviudual to prove citizenship or legal status.
April 29th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
JPA; Correct, I have only been to Canada and the last time was 8/2000 before the crack down and Passport/Passport Card requirement. But last I checked, the USA can only enforce their own Constitutional expectations on its own soil, per se, so I wouldn’t want to compare how those Bleeding heart liberal Europeans treat their own citizenry. Isn’t that one of the reason we fought the Revolution
Kerm; In many cases, a ‘Valid ID’ and ‘Proof of citizenship’ is not synonymous.
Again, I am torn by the language and looseness of the legislation, not necessarily the intent of it. It would seem Foot may share the same concern but I could be misreading him.
Flash
April 29th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
flash wrote:
“So what is the difference between ‘reasonable suspicion’ and “probable cause”.?
I was a cop back east.
There are a number of levels of proof. For police officers, three are the most important.
1. Mere suspicion is a hunch. You have nothing else. The only action to have what is known as the “common law right of inquiry”. You can go up to the person and ask questions that any other civilian is allowed to.
“Good morning! How are you today, Sir?”
“What time is it?”
“Do you thing it’s going to rain today?”
A police officer cannot use force during a mere suspicion inquiry.
2. Reasonable suspicion: general facts and circumstances that indicate a crime has been committed, is being committed, or will be committed. This is a forcible stop. The officer has the authority to ask the subject his identification and nature of his conduct. If there is a fear for the officer’s safety, the officer has the authority to *frisk* the subject.
3. Probable cause: specific facts and circumstances that indicate a crime was committed or is being committed. The officer has the authority to use force to effect a custodial arrest of the subject. The officer has the authority to search the subject.
April 29th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Of course ‘Valid ID’ and ‘Proof of citizenship’ is not synonymous. The question is what does a cop do when he pulls you over and you don’t have an ID?
April 29th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I’d say that would trigger “reasonable suspicion”.
April 29th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
[…] Joe “Learned Foot” Tucci, who actually has some background in Arizona law, and who noted in my comment section yesterday: Reasonable suspicion, I think, pertains to searches after an arrest has been effected. The example […]
April 29th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
A HA!
Flash,
Read subsection E of the section you quoted:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
So the standard for arrest of a person for immigration violation without a stop for another offense is probable cause (read Nachman’s comment above). Meaning, you can’t just amble up to any brownish guy on the street and ask for ID. If you see him sneaking across the border, find him in the back of a moving truck with 50 other people, etc., then it’s fair game.
Further, the last subsection provides: “THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.”
Meaning, if the feds can’t do it, then neither can AZ law enforcement.
April 29th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
game. set. match.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mitchpberg. mitchpberg said: @DukePowell @NewsCut Bob, have you read law? Check out comment section http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=10390; actual lawyer discusses. […]
April 29th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Andy McCarthy with the best synopsis so far:
“The people who are complaining about this law almost certainly either have not read it or are demagogues who would make the same absurd claims no matter what [the] law said.”