Democrat County Supervisor Doesn’t Know Arizona Borders Mexico but Supports Boycott

I hate to be repetitive, but... maybe no drivers license, expired tags, no proof of insurance. Race is a key, and to me its not that law enforcement can't use that any of the following that I listed other than race, most of them just won't.

 

"someone has to be already involved in a crime" - Regardless of race, you give up most of your privacy when you're even accused of a crime. Background checks, criminal record checks, all kinds of digging is done the instant you're accused of or involved in any crime. Like the citizenship status isn't going to come up at some point in all this digging? Please.

You ask how is an officer supposed to determine legal status other than by profiling? Gee, I don't know, how about a fucking drivers license for starters? Proof of insurance? Proof of registration? Some form of identification? Oh, someone doesn't have ANY of those?(first obvious red flag) Gee, I wonder if I someone could maybe use one of those fancy things called a "computer" to find out someones legal status...

And maybe you would think twice about playing the race card when you realize we're talking about a state that sits on our Nations border. A state with a long history of immigration violence and problems. A state that in areas, has a Hispanic population so high that you would be hard-pressed to find someone who spoke English.

That isn't "racial profiling". It's called being "accurate", and dealing with a VERY bad situation in the best way possible. When you look at how other countries handle illegal immigrants, or how tyrants in world history have treated certain ethnic or religious groups, you would quickly realize that Arizona's solution is far more "humane".

 

- Doesn't speak English
- Doesn't have any kind of ID whatsoever
- Acting scared of the cops or otherwise suspicious (yes, it is suspicious to be afraid of cops if you haven't done anything wrong)
- Driving around with a crapload of other people who also don't speak English nor have any ID

Keep in mind that none of these factors by themselves constitutes reasonable suspicion. It's not reasonable to suspect somebody who is Hispanic and doesn't speak English is here illegally, as there are a great many people who are US citizens and don't speak a word of English (I deal with them just about every day here in Cali). But couple that with not having an ID and it begins to become reasonable that the person isn't here legally. It's not that hard to develop a suspicion that somebody is here illegally.

"As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion."
A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona | Washington Examiner

And a DL is different from ID. If you're driving, you better have a driver's license. If you're being arrested, you have to provide some kind of ID. If you're not a citizen, you're FEDERALLY required to have ID proving you're here legally.

"The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed."

Also, while it may not be legally required to carry ID, it's sure as shit a good idea to do so. Just like it's not legally required for you to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle in Florida, it's still a good idea to wear one. If all it takes to keep you from being harassed by cops, why would you not have some kind of ID on you, regardless of where you are?

And again, you keep bringing up the fact that illegal immigrants from Mexico look Mexican. Again, that fact alone is not reason enough to not enforce immigration laws, because it's inherent that people illegally immigrating here from Mexico look Mexican. Just because they're of a different color doesn't mean the laws don't apply to them or that the laws shouldn't be enforced for them.

 

I know that, I've taken Criminology classes so I understand the legal term "reasonable suspicion," as well as "probable cause," and how the two are different and in what situations which one is needed. Which is why I understand what "reasonable suspicion" means in the law that was written, and why others don't understand it despite having read it.

 

Uh, what?!?

Unless you know something I don't, when pulled over by the police in the state of Arizona, much like any other state, I'm pretty certain that 99.9% of officers will ask the same first question, which usually has to do with YOU providing some form of identification.

Uh, that right there would be in fact an LEO using a tool OTHER than profiling.

If you cannot provide some form of identification(first obvious red flag, and probably enough to justify "reasonable suspicion"), then chances are they will ask for your name. Provided the person doesn't lie about their name, chances are the officer will then take their name and plug it into a computer.

Uh, that right there would be in fact an LEO using yet another tool OTHER than profiling.

And 99.9% of LEOs would go through this same exact procedure regardless of age, race, or color of skin.

 

Drivers License, Identification card, car registration, proof of insurance, and finally, just asking someone's name so they can plug it into a computer that would be connected in some way to a database that could tell them something about their citizenship status(or lack thereof). Don't give me this bullshit they can't or don't use anything else other than race, especially when running certain background checks or requesting certain forms of identification is nothing more than established police procedure that has nothing to do with the color of a persons skin.

I call bullshit. In the day and age of credit cards, debit cards, and ID'ing damn near anyone who looks under the age of 30 when buying tobacco or alcohol products, I seriously doubt that "Many" legal citizens are not carrying some form of identification. It's a hell of a lot more of a hassle to NOT carry around ID these days.

 

If I remember right we've already done that.

Didn't work out too well did it?

"Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."