I like when liberals complain about the fact that this law has a "potential for abuse". Especially this is interesting coming from people who haven't even read it. Geniuses like Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder.
HELLO!!!!! Earth to liberals. ANY law has a "potential for abuse".

I like when liberals complain about the fact that this law has a "potential for abuse". Especially this is interesting coming from people who haven't even read it. Geniuses like Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder.
HELLO!!!!! Earth to liberals. ANY law has a "potential for abuse".

согласна, натан. например, никто не возмущается когда полиция может запросто остановить дорогую машину с подростком за рулем. и без всяких конкретных поводов.
но самое большое лицемерие, когда возмущается мексиканский президент.

Duh:-|
Нормальный закон, ничего особенного. *70% американцев поддерживает его. *Уже есть такой же федеральный закон.

На днях Президент Мексики по приглашению Обамы прибыл в Вашингтон. Главной темой их беседы стала проблема иммиграции. Отправляясь в США, Кальдерон намеревался добиться пересмотра принятого в Аризоне закона.
Губернатор Аризоны, штата, расположенного на границе с Мексикой, в конце апреля подписал беспрецедентно жесткий закон против нелегальной иммиграции, по которому полицейские смогут проверять документы у людей, которые, по их мнению, могут находиться на территории США нелегально. Отсутствие документов станет поводом к задержанию и последующей депортации.

(sr) *Президент страны, из которой массово сваливают собственные граждане, еще и возмущается тем, что их нелюбезно принимают. Дурдом. Интересно, скоро ли Россия начнет заботиться о своих нелегалах, например, в Нью-Йорке.

Galya, that is unbelievable!!!

What gets me is that people who oppose the law seem to completely overlook what the word "illegal" means. If you are doing anything at all that is illegal why would you be surprised that you are being stoped by cops?

The thing is that this is not that new of a law, in Florida the cops can stop you and check your residence documents now.

How is the law controlling something that is already illegal can be so controversial?

What gets me is that people who oppose the law seem to completelyoverlook what the word "illegal" means. If you are doing anything atall that is illegal why would you be surprised that you are beingstoped by cops?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
well, what gets me is that those who support the law fail to realise that the original version (not sure about the revised one) doesn't mention illegal conduct, and is intentionally vague about the nature of "lawful contact".

New Jersey also has a law that requires law enforcement officers to inquire about the immigration status of anyone arrested (or suspected) of a serious crime - including drunk driving, I believe. I don't have a problem with that law... just wonder why Arizona chose deliberately vague terminoligy.

***********.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedd
This is great. A good message for those who did not read the law.(H)

For You!
Lazy "Progressive" thinkers -
Just read it !!!
It is 10 pages long, not 2000!!!

" If you are doing anything at all that is illegal why would you be surprised that you are being stoped by cops"
- Renata, the point those people are making is that cops will stop people randomly - you, me, Gera, Lina, Oleg....And we do have accents and do not carry our passports with us, do we? I, for one, might look quite like your average middle class Mexican mamasita , and some overzealous cops might go overboard on a bad day....that's the point. I am actually not opposed to law inquiring about immigration status . It needs to be worded very clearly, though.

Вот, как перевести, так чтоб и смысл, и колорит сохранились:
Лицо кавказской национальности
или
Бьют по морде, а не по паспорту?
Или это не по теме?

i have been stopped before with a roadblock ( i don't even know how those things are legal ).
this was in the state of NY.
cop inquired about my citizenship status among other things..

- Renata, the point those people are making is that cops will stop people randomly - you, me, Gera, Lina, Oleg....And we do have accents and do not carry our passports with us, do we?
all you need is your driver's license..if anything, those who are legal residents and not citizens are given easier standards, they don't need to show their green card if they have a driver's license, and it'll eliminate the reasonable suspicion they are here illegally..
I was stopped three times in my life.. the last time I didn't even have my driver's license (a really rare occasion).. no one questioned my citizenship status since he was able to pull that info from my car's license plates..he only gave a ticket for not having my driver's license (which I was able to appeal in court by bringing my driver's license there).. the first two times I wasn't even given a ticket for speeding..:-$

давайте быть честными с собой. мы все всегда носим при себе либо водительские права либо хотя бы карточку мед. страховки. этого достаточно, чтобы определить наш легальный статус. и потом не знаю как в аризоне или в нй, но в калифорнии очень легко невооруженным взглядом отличить нелегалов от легалов. нелегалы делают все,чтобы казаться невидимыми в повседневной жизни. и это заметно.

and btw, there is always legal remedies for those "overzealous" cops who abuse power and exceed their authority.. you can always sue..(ch)

It's not crystal clear only to blind Obamabots: the new Arizona law is perfectly fine, and prohibits racial profiling. Obama is using the ignorance of majority of his supporters to divide and conquer and nation. Obama is evil. He wants to smear the governor of Arizona, the peole of Arizona, and the law for his own political gain.
Obama is evil... So, I said it.

This is great. A good message for those who did not read the law.(H)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
rather than relying on others interpertation of it, I suggest you take your own advice and read the damn law

all you need is your driver's license..
---------------------------------------------------
correction, all you need is an Arizona driver's license - I'm not sure if the local police can verify out of state information.

t's not crystal clear only to blind Obamabots: the new Arizona law is perfectly fine, and prohibits racial profiling.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I repeat:read the damn law!
"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."
what exactly is this extent?

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
in other words, you are stopped at a sobriety checkpoint (lawful stop), you say: "good evening officer" -in your thick Russian accent- thus giving the police officer reasonable suspicion to haul you in for questioning.

here - I found something very relevant..
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows
1. detention of a search subject in handcuffs while a search is being conducted,
2. and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.
and the Arizona law DOES require the cops to have reasonable suspicion.. so if anything, it's stricter than the federal law..

Respondent Mena and others were detained in handcuffs during a search of the premises they occupied. Petitioners were lead members of a police detachment executing a search warrant of these premises for, inter alia, deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows
1. detention of a search subject in handcuffs while a search is being conducted,
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mena’s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. That detention is consistent with Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, in which the Court held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” The Court there noted that minimizing the risk of harm to officers is a substantial justification for detaining an occupant during a search,

2. and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning

the legality of questioning someone's immigration status was in the court decision regardless of the circumstances.. and that's what the Court concluded -

***********.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html

2. Theofficers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration statusduring her detention did not violate her Fourth Amendmentrights. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contraryappears premised on the assumption that the officers wererequired to have independent reasonable suspicion in order toso question Mena. However, this Court has “heldrepeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute aseizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434. Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the NinthCircuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by thequestioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaningof the FourthAmendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendmentjustification for inquiring about Mena’s immigrationstatus was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes,543 U.S. ___ , ___ (slip op., at 2—4). Pp. 7—8.

the legality of questioning someone's immigration status was in the court decision regardless of the circumstances..
------------------------------------------------------------------
stop interpreting the law. "Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the NinthCircuit didnot hold that the detention was prolonged by thequestioning,"

"officers executing a search warrantfor contraband have the authority “to detain the occupants of thepremises while a proper search is conducted.”
meaning they couldn't have detained them withpout a warrant.
and only "Because Mena’s initial detention waslawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention wasprolonged by the questioning there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required."

3. Because the Ninth Circuit did not address Mena’s alternative argument that her detention extended beyond the time the police completed the tasks incident to the search, this Court declines to address it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
that actually might have been a violation of Mena's Fourth Amendment rights, but since it was never addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court, the Supreme Court declined to address it as well.

and nowhere does is state: "regardless of the circumstances."
if anything, there had to be a warrant, the suspects had to be legally detained, and their detention (including the questions concerning their immigration starus) shouldn't have extended beyond the time it took to search the premises - although it did in this case.

let's try again - when the court says "the questioning of the immigration status didn't violate of the 4th amendment because it was not an independent seizure" - translation: an officer doesn't need a reasonable suspicion to question anyone's immigration status - questioning is not a seizure..

yes, lets try this again. where exactly does the court say that? please reference the actual case, and not someones misinterpretation of it.
the court doesn't say:"the questioning of the immigration status didn't violate of the 4th amendment because it was not an independent seizure", what it does say: "Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful "(they had a warrant to search the property) "and the NinthCircuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by thequestioning," (the questioning did not extend beyong the time it took to conduct the search) "there was no additional seizure within the meaningof the FourthAmendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendmentjustification for inquiring about Mena’s immigrationstatus was required."

do yourself a favor, read the case (including Florida v. Bostick, while you're at it), and then try interpretating it.

The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F.3d, at 1264-1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning 101*101 constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification;

and request consent to search his or her luggage." Bostick, supra, at 434-435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.
********scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7971847631731056703&hl=en&as_sdt =2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado,466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis forsuspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions ofthat individual; ask to examine the individual's identification;
--------------------------------------------------------------
yes, but Florida v. Bostick held that even though officers were free to ask, the individual had to feel free to refuse to answer and leave. it was not enough for him to be free to refuse, he also had to feel that he was free to do so.

FLORIDA v. BOSTICK
"The more appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable passenger wouldfeel free to decline the officers' request or otherwise terminate theencounter. Thus, this case is analytically indistinguishable from INS v. Delgado,supra. There, no seizure occurred when INS agents visited factories atrandom, stationing some agents at exits while others questionedworkers, because, even though workers were not free to leave withoutbeing questioned, the agents' conduct gave them no reason to believethat they would be detained if they answered truthfully or refused toanswer. Such a refusal, alone, does not furnish the minimal level ofobjective justification needed for detention or seizure."

overruled.. argumentative :-) .. the Arizona law REQUIRES reasonable suspicion.. so all the other arguments and cases are irrelevant here..

there was no additionalseizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officersdid not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date andplace of birth, or immigration status.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
because she was already being legally detained. they had a warrant to search the premises, had the right to cuff her to secure their safety, and to ask her questions only because she was already legally "seized. they didn't need reasonable suspicion because she was already being suspected of a crime - hence the warrant.

you are absolutely cluless when it comes to law, take a law class and then we'll talk.