So, will illegals keep coming in now that cops can ask them for ID? (medical, laws)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They'll keep coming. They'll just high tail it out of AZ for other states. A lot of them will choose to cross into TX, NM, and CA instead. Obama has probably increased the flow. They know now even if they get caught, they won't be deported, unless they've been convicted of a felony.
Isn't that only for Arizona? I thought that's why people were mad since he's basically retaliating against Arizona and not other states?
Isn't that only for Arizona? I thought that's why people were mad since he's basically retaliating against Arizona and not other states?
Not deporting them for felonies is all across the US. The WH and DHS made that statement some time ago and were doing it on a case by case basis. But that was too slow so now they have this EO amnesty for the younger crowd.
DHS changes go back to July 2009 with this reprioritization. That's why states are proposing legislation to deal with this growing problem. Stealth amnesty has been going on since 2009 and many are not aware of it.
State and Local Cooperation on Immigration Enforcement: ICE Access (2010)
Immigrant rights advocacy organizations have opposed the 287(g), S-COMM and the CAP programs. They argue that illegal aliens should not be deported unless they have been convicted of a serious crime. They in effect attempt to avoid the deportation of any illegal alien who might benefit from the future adoption of an amnesty.
In response to this argument, DHS Secretary Napolitano announced in July 2009 that 287(g) programs were going to be circumscribed to require the participating local agencies to restrict their use of the programs to the enforcement priorities of ICE.10
..
Secretary Napolitano characterized this prioritization as needed to focus ICE resources on the greatest threat to the public. At the same time, it undercut the ability of local law enforcement personnel deputized as immigration agents by 287(g) to shape priorities to local conditions. Locally law enforcement officials are being forced by the federal authorities to release back into the community illegal aliens if they do not meet the DHS criteria.
Refuse to show ID to an officer and the next thing you're likely to hear is "Ok, I need you to accompany me to the police station while I verify your ID. You're not under arrest. The handcuffs are for your protection, and mine." You can spend your time and money trying to sue the police department, but if the officer had a valid reason to ask you for proof of ID, chances are you'll lose.
“3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.”
You must provide your full legal name, but, unless you are operating a motorized vehicle, you cannot be compelled to provide identification or answer any of the law enforcement officer's questions.
If you do not use the rights protected by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, what is the point of protecting them?
Isn't that only for Arizona? I thought that's why people were mad since he's basically retaliating against Arizona and not other states?
Yes, he's retaliating against AZ by instructing ICE to ignore all calls except for convicted felons. His directive that only convicted felons be deported is nation wide. There's a difference between ICE ignoring a call, and actual deportation.
If I report my illegal alien neighbor in any other state, ICE will take a report, check the person out, and if they have a felony conviction, hold them for deportation. In AZ, in the same situation, ICE won't even take a report, and that's the rub, isn't it? How will ICE know whether they're a convicted felon, or not, if they ignore the call?
But how does your California driver's license prove that you are a U.S. National, and are not required to carry a Resident Card? If it isn't based on how you appear or speak, how exactly do you currently verify to law enforcement that you are not just an LPR without their Resident Card? I thought that SB-1070 was supposed to be a mirror of Federal immigration status checks, so why does it not have to mimic a verbal statement of citizenship being accepted?
Think about the "perfect storm" opportunity that President Obama has. One section of SB-1070 has been upheld, and is now in effect. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that he believes Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery, and separately that he will fully enforce immigration law, and SB-1070, as he sees it.
Obama just has to show up at his Maricopa County office. He tells Joe that if he doesn't believe the certificate he must enforce the law (Obama cannot have U.S. citizenship that would be derived from his mother for birth abroad; She was too young at his birth for the required residency in the United States after age 14). It is an excellent "Put up or shut up" opportunity.
And ANY Arizona resident can sue the state after that if they believe Joe hasn't enforced SB-1070, all kinds of nuts would come forward to do it...
Just what do you think the Secret Service will be doing while Joe tries to enforce the law? Haven't you noticed Obama gets special priveleges? He doesn't have to abide by the law like the rest of us do.
You must provide your full legal name, but, unless you are operating a motorized vehicle, you cannot be compelled to provide identification or answer any of the law enforcement officer's questions.
If you do not use the rights protected by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, what is the point of protecting them?
I see no place in your quotes which says a person may not be detained until their identity is established. On the contrary, it says they may be detained for such purposes. If they have a valid ID, no problem, and no detention, but lacking a valid ID, or if they refuse to identify themselves, the officer has a right to hold them to determine their ID.
that is not the pirmary weapon against illegal immigration. primary weapon is MADD, for every 10 drunks arrested at check point 900 cars are impounded driven by illegals w/o any papers at all to drive them.
that is not the pirmary weapon against illegal immigration. primary weapon is MADD, for every 10 drunks arrested at check point 900 cars are impounded driven by illegals w/o any papers at all to drive them.
FWIW California has pending legislation preventing police from impounding illegals cars for driving with no driver's license.
I see no place in your quotes which says a person may not be detained until their identity is established. On the contrary, it says they may be detained for such purposes. If they have a valid ID, no problem, and no detention, but lacking a valid ID, or if they refuse to identify themselves, the officer has a right to hold them to determine their ID.
You were taking about providing ID, not being detained. Once again, unless you are operating a motorized vehicle, you are not required to provide any ID, or answer any question, other than to provide the law enforcement officer with your full legal name. The burden of proof as to your name and immigration status resides with the law enforcement officer, not you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
