Supreme Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:27 am

The Supreme Court today struck down most of Arizona's controversial immigration law, Scotusblog.com reports.

The court only left standing only the "check your papers" partsof the law that requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists they are in the country illegally.

The court indicated that that would face further scrutiny.

Supreme Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law

________

You knew it was coming.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:51 am

They did, however, keep the "show us your papers" clause. But I have no problem with that part. If you're already breaking the law, then you really don't have an expectation of privacy.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:00 am

flop, what do you mean when you say "You knew it was coming."

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:53 am

AnneBoleyn;1397785 wrote: flop, what do you mean when you say "You knew it was coming."

lawmakers today don't make laws based on constitutionality. they make them for political gain and that 5 O'Clock sound bite.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:17 am

Saint_;1397781 wrote: They did, however, keep the "show us your papers" clause. But I have no problem with that part. If you're already breaking the law, then you really don't have an expectation of privacy.

Why would you give the police the right to demand identity papers unless they have a good reason? Here I am not obliged to carry identification with me at all and don't normally unless I have my wallet with me in which I now carry a photocard driving licence but even if stopped for a traffic offence not having the licence on me is not an offence unless I am driving an HGV. SUS laws are a big political issue here. People forget the police can very easily become an oppressive force you need to be careful what powers you give them. You presumably would not tolerate being stopped just because the police didn't like the look of you (long hair, wearing an earring, got a tattoo etc etc) what makes you think it's right others should be?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:35 am

gmc;1397823 wrote: Why would you give the police the right to demand identity papers unless they have a good reason?
This law doesn't give them that right. As I understand it, they have to have already been stopped for some other violation, then presented good reason to believe they might not be here legally as well.

eta: What I don't understand is how it is illegal for state & local police to enforce federal law, but it apparently is.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:28 am

The initial idea behind the Arizona law was to make life so miserable for the people here illegally that they self-deport. This has been explicitly articulated by the supporters of the law (like Mitt). Unfortunately, racial profiling is the only thing that would make the police suspicious that a person was not a U.S. citizen. It was unconstitutional because it was targeting an entire race, not just people breaking the law.

Given that some fixed percentage of the population is fairly racist, and these people will be hired as police, who will police the police? Police should not be given a whole lot of good faith when it comes to race relations since over the last 50 years they would not get a good grade (especially in the south).

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:33 pm

Good to see democracy in action.

I contrast this with the other thread on the gun tracing stuff. This to me is one of the strong suits of American democracy - you try it out, you test it, and shoot it down if it fails the test or go with it if not. I like that boldness.

My Liberal Democracy is feeling a radical stage. I hope our leaders in government are feeling it too.

Give Vince some meat.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:20 pm

Accountable;1397827 wrote: This law doesn't give them that right. As I understand it, they have to have already been stopped for some other violation, then presented good reason to believe they might not be here legally as well.

eta: What I don't understand is how it is illegal for state & local police to enforce federal law, but it apparently is.

Well, you can't just see a carload of "mexicans" drive by, and stop them just to ask for their papers.

You have to drum up some reason to stop them, like a tail light out, or they were 'weaving', or something, and THEN stop them and ask for their papers.

It's all very 'constitutional' that way.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:51 am

LarsMac;1397937 wrote: Well, you can't just see a carload of "mexicans" drive by, and stop them just to ask for their papers.

You have to drum up some reason to stop them, like a tail light out, or they were 'weaving', or something, and THEN stop them and ask for their papers.

It's all very 'constitutional' that way.Do you think that's common? Have you seen a lot of it?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:57 am

Accountable;1397945 wrote: Do you think that's common? Have you seen a lot of it?

Over here it was rife during the time of the Sus laws - if you tell a policeman that he must have "grounds for suspicion" before he can stop and search then he will invent a reason that you cannot disprove every time.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:00 am

Bryn Mawr;1397947 wrote: Over here it was rife during the time of the Sus laws - if you tell a policeman that he must have "grounds for suspicion" before he can stop and search then he will invent a reason that you cannot disprove every time.
Yes, the bigots will find a reason ... whether a law exists or not. No one can blame this law for creating or even fomenting bigotry. It's the hyperbole that's doing that.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:01 am

I'd say it's common enough and I've seen it happen to Caucasians. It's happened to me as well as others I know.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:11 am

Interesting video. If a police officer agitates someone, the officer can then say they are "nervous." If they arrest someone (even without conviction) then other officers can use this as further evidence of suspicion.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:15 am

If an officer pulls you over for no reason try and tell him that he is out of line for not having probable cause. Then see how long it takes for you to get either a ticket, searched and or arrested just because you questioned his authority.

If anyone thinks for a second that police don't pull over people without cause, then they are naive at best.

Now if an Hispanic is pulled over for just cause, they should have to show proper ID just as whites, blacks or anyone else has to.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:22 am

Accountable;1397945 wrote: Do you think that's common? Have you seen a lot of it?

I have known it to happen. It was a common tactic of the Police in the South for many years against Blacks and other 'undesirables'.

I doubt such tactics have been eliminated from their repertoire.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:32 am

We routinely run drug arrest reports in the paper after a car is stopped for following to close behind or not signaling a lane change out on the interstate that runs past us and our state police headquarters.

Best as us locals can figure out, there is someone posted at the huge truck stop about 45 miles west on the interstate that is alerting them to pull over a suspected vehicle. Because the stops always seem to be happening to vehicles traveling east on the interstate.:wah:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:07 am

Accountable;1397945 wrote: Do you think that's common? Have you seen a lot of it?

Yup, just driving around with relatives in my car.....

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:58 am

YZGI;1397954 wrote: If an officer pulls you over for no reason try and tell him that he is out of line for not having probable cause. Then see how long it takes for you to get either a ticket, searched and or arrested just because you questioned his authority.

If anyone thinks for a second that police don't pull over people without cause, then they are naive at best.

Now if an Hispanic is pulled over for just cause, they should have to show proper ID just as whites, blacks or anyone else has to.

I would wait and find out why I was pulled over rather than assume there was no good reason. I have been stopped by police who just wanted to tell me one of my lights was out, being rude would not have been constructive.