Arizona governor signs immigration bill

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

interesting... looks like my assumption is wrong.

I see that Arizona currently has 140 National Guards assisting Border Patrol agents and wanted to send additional 250 National Guards however Arizona cannot afford long-term plan so they wanted the federal gov't to foot the bill.

and I see that there are total of over 2,000 Border Patrol Agents in Arizona. Looks like both governments need to stop being bureaucratic and wasteful.

Makes you wonder why they even bother passing the bill to begin with.

 

[Jiro]

Makes you wonder why they even bother passing the bill to begin with.

you know what? This immigration law is the result of a knee-jerk reaction to killing of Arizona rancher Rob Krentz and the authorities believed he was killed by illegal. It would put a twist to this martyr-like story if he was murdered by an American. Wondering what weapon was used to kill him and his dog but the authorities are not releasing that info. and the curious thing is that it was said murder by illegals along Arizona-Mexico border is almost unheard of among ranchers.

Illegal Immigrant Suspected in Murder of Arizona Rancher

Tracker dogs have now followed the tracks of the killer back into Mexico, some 15 miles south.

Police have several scenarios of what might have occurred.

One, a drug cartel scout. The Chirachua mountains in southeast Arizona are 11,000 feet tall, rugged and remote. It is a popular drug corridor and the killer may have been clearing the way for a load of drugs moving north when Krentz surprised him.

Two, the suspect belonged to a band of thieves terrorizing the remote ranches spattered around the area — an idea supported by other ranchers.

"Two days earlier a 9mm and a 9mm Glock had been stolen from a home in Portal," said rancher Roger Barnett. "There is no way to know for sure it was the murder weapon. But the bullet the killed Rob and his dog was a 9mm."

Three, retaliation. The day before the killing, Krentz's brother Phil stopped a caravan of illegal immigrants carrying 280 pounds of marijuana. All eight were arrested by the border patrol and the pot was impounded.

The odd part, according to local land owners, is that the killer was apparently alone. Illegal immigrants crossing the border usually hire coyotes to help them pass and travel in groups or 5, 10, 20 or more.

"I think Rob came to help this guy, and the moment he put that telephone to his ear, he was shot," said rancher Richard Humphries, who lives in nearby Elfrida. "It's happened to me. They don't want you to call the border patrol."

Krentz had both a rifle and a revolver, neither of which he used. And both were still with the ATV when his body was found.

I guess out of retaliation and anger - Arizona just wanna round'em up and send'em back. The thing is... Krentz was most likely a victim of vicious drug war, not illegal immigration.

so Arizona should be passing a harsh drug law instead of immigration law.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

you know what? This immigration law is the result of a knee-jerk reaction to killing of Arizona rancher Rob Krentz and the authorities believed he was killed by illegal. It would put a twist to this martyr-like story if he was murdered by an American. Wondering what weapon was used to kill him and his dog but the authorities are not releasing that info. and the curious thing is that it was said murder by illegals along Arizona-Mexico border is almost unheard of among ranchers.

Illegal Immigrant Suspected in Murder of Arizona Rancher


I guess out of retaliation and anger - Arizona just wanna round'em up and send'em back. The thing is... Krentz was most likely a victim of vicious drug war, not illegal immigration.

so Arizona should be passing a harsh drug law instead of immigration law.

So basically, even if Arizona got zero immigration rate, he would still be murdered. Pretty much what I have been saying all along.

 

[Barbaro]

I think one of the factors that indicates that Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the USA that lead to the passing of a bill.

La Santa Muerta aka Holy Death is one of the factors that exist in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and CA. I have seen plenty of them. They look like the grim reapers. Two years ago, Mexico had the order to destroy any shrine or any holy place that indicate La Santa Muerta. The government of Mexico does not recognize it as a religion anymore. Catholic church even denounces it.

If you ask them to talk about it, they will not talk to you, otherwise the death will come back to you. They take it very seriously.

Many police usually catch illegal immigrants along with La Santa Muerta objects or tattoos on them. It will be interesting to see if the police determines that La Santa Muerta is probable cause to arrest them.

 

[Reba]

you are correct that I do not get to determine if it's a probable cause or not but I can try to get officer to tell me what the probable cause is. This is where you have to use your best judgment when responding to officer. It depends on the scenario. On most cases - you can really know if there is a probable cause or not. It's kinda obvious. Again - use your best judgment.

Crime events can go down quickly. The officer might not have time to give you an explanation. It's the officer's judgment as to whether or not there is probable cause. It's not for you to decide. If there is any dispute, it has to be sorted out at the station house or court house later.

However - if I were in the vicinity of crime, then yes I will have to comply as per Terry Stop law.

That's just it. You don't know whether or not a crime has been committed nearby--the officer does.

The officers can have a "consensual conversation" - a casual conversation with me when in their mind that they're suspecting me of being involved with the crime but lack specific facts to produce a probable cause. The officer can kindly ask me for my ID without probable cause and it is up to me to show ID or not. By law - I do not have to comply with their request. "Am I free to go?" is all I can ask.

Sure. When the officer gets a call at the crowded mall that someone who fits your description left a suspicious package under a bench, he can let you decide whether or not to cooperate. PLEASE!

I'm not a firm believer of "Nothing To Hide, Nothing To Fear" doctrine (aka "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.").

It's true that innocent people can be wrongly swept up in the urgency of crime prevention, investigation, and prosecution. However, we can't live in a paranoid state of fear that could hinder orderly law enforcement and protection of others.

Honestly, suppose you refuse to show your ID, within your rights, but get arrested anyway. What benefit was there to acting liking a jerk?

I don't believe in police state. Orwellian state. fascist state. That's why I live in America, not England or Germany. France requires people to show ID when requested with or without probable cause.

A police state, Orwellian state or fascist state wouldn't allow you recourse for police abuses. The USA does. Like I stated, at the station house or court house, you can get that recourse. On the street, in the mall, at the airport, while events are going down, is not the time to get into a Constitutional discourse with officers.

if you're in a vehicle - you are required by law to provide ID upon request. no matter what. That's the primary difference. If you are walking on sidewalk, minding your own business - you are not required to provide ID upon request if there's no probable cause.

How is that different from driving down the highway "minding your own business?" If you don't believe in showing your ID while walking, why are you OK with showing your ID while driving? That's inconsistent.

[qutoe]Because of Camillo and Downing - the officers will smarten up and there will be less victims of police harassment in the future time. In fact - Camillo and Downing cases were bolstered by previous cases. Not all officers are aware of it so there's nothing we can do except to stand up for your rights - either on street or at court. [/quote]
Oh, it will effect them all right. They might become more hesitant to approach and question suspects, and so let some bad guys get away.

I don't think it's nonsense when it comes to Civil Rights violation. I hope the cop would play it cool and not be stupid enough to get a mark in his jacket (a lingo for bad record in his police file)... which would lead to questionable credibility issue for his pending arrest cases.

Civil rights aren't nonsense but one's approach can be nonsensical.

I should not be jailed for failing to produce ID if there's no probable cause like Downing and Camillo but hey... if the officer wanna go down that path, let's go. I have nothing to lose but the officer does - he'll risk his credibility in his jacket and possibly his job.

If you hinder an investigation of a possible crime just to make a point I don't see how that benefits anyone.

Maybe you feel you won't have anything to lose but the victims of crimes might not feel that same way.

 

[Reba]

interesting... looks like my assumption is wrong.

I see that Arizona currently has 140 National Guards assisting Border Patrol agents and wanted to send additional 250 National Guards however Arizona cannot afford long-term plan so they wanted the federal gov't to foot the bill.

and I see that there are total of over 2,000 Border Patrol Agents in Arizona. Looks like both governments need to stop being bureaucratic and wasteful.

If it's a national border, then it should be protected by national troops, and paid for by national funds. It's not a border between states, after all.

How many guards would it take? Figure in the number of miles of border, times three shifts per day, for 365 days of the year....

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

If it's a national border, then it should be protected by national troops, and paid for by national funds. It's not a border between states, after all.

How many guards would it take? Figure in the number of miles of border, times three shifts per day, for 365 days of the year....

Yet... if Arizona is unable to pay for the additional 250 guards long-term, then why did they even bother passing the bill in the first place? If they're unable to pay for the additional support... well... more police enforcement will add to the budget as well. A budget they don't have.

 

[Reba]

Yet... if Arizona is unable to pay for the additional 250 guards long-term, then why did they even bother passing the bill in the first place? If they're unable to pay for the additional support... well... more police enforcement will add to the budget as well. A budget they don't have.

That's why I've been asking if anyone realistically expects a massive increase in ID checks by police officers. If they don't have additional manpower to do it, then it probably won't get done.

My personal opinion is that it's not the job of the police to seek out illegal aliens but they also shouldn't be hindered from checking on a suspect's immigration status as part of an investigation of another criminal activity or law offense.

The border issue should be primarily taken care of by national forces and money, not the police. There should be cooperation amongst agencies but the responsibility of protecting our nation's borders and coasts should be national forces, not state or local.

We have a military Coast Guard for our national coastlines, so why shouldn't we have a similar military border guard for our national land borders?

 

[kokonut]

Somehow I get the feeling that some just do not like the police with the constant smearing.

 

[Jiro]

Crime events can go down quickly. The officer might not have time to give you an explanation. It's the officer's judgment as to whether or not there is probable cause. It's not for you to decide. If there is any dispute, it has to be sorted out at the station house or court house later.


That's just it. You don't know whether or not a crime has been committed nearby--the officer does.


Sure. When the officer gets a call at the crowded mall that someone who fits your description left a suspicious package under a bench, he can let you decide whether or not to cooperate. PLEASE!


It's true that innocent people can be wrongly swept up in the urgency of crime prevention, investigation, and prosecution. However, we can't live in a paranoid state of fear that could hinder orderly law enforcement and protection of others.

again - all above - use your best judgment

Honestly, suppose you refuse to show your ID, within your rights, but get arrested anyway. What benefit was there to acting liking a jerk?

how is it acting like a jerk if it's not illegal? The officer is a jerk for illegally arresting me.

A police state, Orwellian state or fascist state wouldn't allow you recourse for police abuses. The USA does. Like I stated, at the station house or court house, you can get that recourse. On the street, in the mall, at the airport, while events are going down, is not the time to get into a Constitutional discourse with officers.

again - use your best judgment.

How is that different from driving down the highway "minding your own business?" If you don't believe in showing your ID while walking, why are you OK with showing your ID while driving? That's inconsistent.

the law requires me to provide ID upon request if I'm in a vehicle but the law does NOT require me to provide ID upon request without probable cause if I'm walking

Oh, it will effect them all right. They might become more hesitant to approach and question suspects, and so let some bad guys get away.

Civil rights aren't nonsense but one's approach can be nonsensical.

If you hinder an investigation of a possible crime just to make a point I don't see how that benefits anyone.

We should not be at mercy of power-tripping jerks. It is very easy to know when you're facing with a power-tripping jerk or not. You have every rights to stand your ground against power-tripping jerk. again - use your best judgment. It is vitally important for police to establish a good relationship with the community in order to do their job effectively.

Maybe you feel you won't have anything to lose but the victims of crimes might not feel that same way.

well then let me fight for them who might not feel the same way. I thank Camillo and Downing for their courage to stand up against power-tripping jerks.

 

[Jiro]

If it's a national border, then it should be protected by national troops, and paid for by national funds. It's not a border between states, after all.

How many guards would it take? Figure in the number of miles of border, times three shifts per day, for 365 days of the year....

looks like they need a lot more added to 2,000+ guards and I demand our government to give them the resource they urgently needed since Arizona has one of the highest illegal crossings.

 

[Jiro]

That's why I've been asking if anyone realistically expects a massive increase in ID checks by police officers. If they don't have additional manpower to do it, then it probably won't get done.

My personal opinion is that it's not the job of the police to seek out illegal aliens but they also shouldn't be hindered from checking on a suspect's immigration status as part of an investigation of another criminal activity or law offense.

The border issue should be primarily taken care of by national forces and money, not the police. There should be cooperation amongst agencies but the responsibility of protecting our nation's borders and coasts should be national forces, not state or local.

exactly. It's foolish of Arizona Governor to sign this law that will open itself up to extremely costly lawsuits.

Mind you - the police CAN currently check for suspect's immigration status as part of an investigation. The only difference is - this new law REQUIRES them to ask for immigration status on pretty much any charge including speeding pull-over. They have to contact I.C.E. for information. That means it takes time. That means when it takes time - they will detain me.

We have a military Coast Guard for our national coastlines, so why shouldn't we have a similar military border guard for our national land borders?

we do - National Guards and Border Patrol Agents. They have something in common with Coast Guard - nothing's ever enough. They all gotta make do with the budget and resource they have.

 

[Reba]

again - all above - use your best judgment.

The problem is, when you are approached by an officer, you don't have all the same facts that he has, so you're basing your judgment on nothing.

how is it acting like a jerk if it's not illegal? The officer is a jerk for illegally arresting me.

Just because doing something might be legal it doesn't mean it is wise.

Even if you think the other party (the officer) is being a jerk, how does that justify your actions? You are responsible for your actions, not his.

the law requires me to provide ID upon request if I'm in a vehicle but the law does NOT require me to provide ID upon request without probable cause if I'm walking

Again, how would you know the officer doesn't have probable cause at that time?

We should not be at mercy of power-tripping jerks. It is very easy to know when you're facing with a power-tripping jerk or not.

That's justification for filing a complaint. That's not justification for reciprocating jerkiness.

You have every rights to stand your ground against power-tripping jerk. again - use your best judgment. It is vitally important for police to establish a good relationship with the community in order to do their job effectively.

How is your standing your ground helping the police establish a good relationship with the community?

I remember the non-violent protests of Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders of the 1960's. Even when there was violence it was usually from "the other side" or even law enforcement agencies themselves. The civil rights movement won the hearts and support of more Americans by NOT being violent or acting like jerks to the police. When the police did act like jerks, they were exposed to the public, and that's how public opinion turned more and more in favor of the civil rights movement.

 

[jillio]

The problem is, when you are approached by an officer, you don't have all the same facts that he has, so you're basing your judgment on nothing.


Just because doing something might be legal it doesn't mean it is wise.

Even if you think the other party (the officer) is being a jerk, how does that justify your actions? You are responsible for your actions, not his.



Again, how would you know the officer doesn't have probable cause at that time?


That's justification for filing a complaint. That's not justification for reciprocating jerkiness.


How is your standing your ground helping the police establish a good relationship with the community?

I remember the non-violent protests of Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders of the 1960's. Even when there was violence it was usually from "the other side" or even law enforcement agencies themselves. The civil rights movement won the hearts and support of more Americans by NOT being violent or acting like jerks to the police. When the police did act like jerks, they were exposed to the public, and that's how public opinion turned more and more in favor of the civil rights movement.

Remember the march to Selma?

 

[Reba]

Remember the march to Selma?

Yes.

We Shall Overcome -- Selma-to-Montgomery March

Exactly as I stated. When the actions of the police at Selma were exposed to the nation, the civil rights movement gained even more mainstream support.

 

[jillio]

Yes.

We Shall Overcome -- Selma-to-Montgomery March

Exactly as I stated. When the actions of the police at Selma were exposed to the nation, the civil rights movement gained even more mainstream support.

Yes, they did. But I believe your statement was that the police were rarely responsible for the violence.

 

[Jiro]

The problem is, when you are approached by an officer, you don't have all the same facts that he has, so you're basing your judgment on nothing.

and the officer is basing his judgment on nothing either - hence a violation of Amendment 1, 4, and/or 5 depending on what he's charging me with.

Just because doing something might be legal it doesn't mean it is wise.

Even if you think the other party (the officer) is being a jerk, how does that justify your actions? You are responsible for your actions, not his.

I'm responsible for my action and he is responsible for his action. the only difference is - his action is illegal. not my action. If the officer knocked on my door and said - I want to search your house. Am I being a jerk for refusing to let him and telling him to leave the property?

Again, how would you know the officer doesn't have probable cause at that time?

that's where you can talk him into telling you the probable cause.

That's justification for filing a complaint. That's not justification for reciprocating jerkiness.

unfortunately - most complaints are just filed and shuffled away. The actual reciprocation (usually leads to firing the cop) takes place at court. If he wishes to go down that way - let's go. One less power-tripping cop on street. Such person like that has no business in law enforcement field.

How is your standing your ground helping the police establish a good relationship with the community?

other way around - being a power-tripping jerk does not help establish a good relationship with the community. With that good relationship - we will do our best to cooperate with them. After all - we paid them to serve and protect us. Unfortunately - the society has been coddled far too long that the society forgets how to do their civil duty and the government had to police us. It's time to step up and do our civil duty.

I remember the non-violent protests of Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders of the 1960's. Even when there was violence it was usually from "the other side" or even law enforcement agencies themselves. The civil rights movement won the hearts and support of more Americans by NOT being violent or acting like jerks to the police. When the police did act like jerks, they were exposed to the public, and that's how public opinion turned more and more in favor of the civil rights movement.

hence - stand your ground and fight for your rights........ but be smart and courteous.

 

[Reba]

Yes, they did. But I believe your statement was that the police were rarely responsible for the violence.

I stated that when there was violence it usually was from the other side or police. That's the opposite of "rarely".

 

[Reba]

and the officer is basing his judgment on nothing either - hence a violation of Amendment 1, 4, and/or 5 depending on what he's charging me with.

How would you know upon what the officer is basing his judgment?

I'm responsible for my action and he is responsible for his action. the only difference is - his action is illegal. not my action. If the officer knocked on my door and said - I want to search your house. Am I being a jerk for refusing to let him and telling him to leave the property?

That's not the same scenario as asking to see your ID in a public place.

He has to have a warrant to search your property unless he suspects someone is in imminent danger, so even that scenario has extenuating circumstances.

that's where you can talk him into telling you the probable cause.

If there's time.

unfortunately - most complaints are just filed and shuffled away. The actual reciprocation (usually leads to firing the cop) takes place at court. If he wishes to go down that way - let's go. One less power-tripping cop on street. Such person like that has no business in law enforcement field.

If you feel that strongly about it, then you would ensure that your complaint was NOT just filed away.

other way around - being a power-tripping jerk does not help establish a good relationship with the community. With that good relationship - we will do our best to cooperate with them. After all - we paid them to serve and protect us. Unfortunately - the society has been coddled far too long that the society forgets how to do their civil duty and the government had to police us. It's time to step up the place and do our civil duty.

Cooperation is a two-way street. If you act like the police are always your enemy you're not going to develop much of a relationship.

 

[Jiro]

How would you know upon what the officer is basing his judgment?

that's what conversation is for. Quote your rights and laws... you'll be fine as long as you are courteous.

That's not the same scenario as asking to see your ID in a public place.

He has to have a warrant to search your property unless he suspects someone is in imminent danger, so even that scenario has extenuating circumstances.

Both are same thing. It's about legality and rights. Some cops do not know better.

If there's time.

and money too in case you have to hire a lawyer.... and pay for your bail.

If you feel that strongly about it, then you would ensure that your complaint was NOT just filed away.

that's true but realistically - there's not much you can do about it unless you have some friends in higher place or media.

Cooperation is a two-way street. If you act like the police are always your enemy you're not going to develop much of a relationship.

Yep and same for cop if they act like we are the criminals up to something no good. well.... I believe the cops are the one who should take initiative in establishing good community relationship since they are the one with gun and handcuff... especially because of a long history of police abuses so we are naturally and understandably fearful of them.

Reba - I'm not being some hippie with silly "Fight The Power" agenda. I'm just being a law-abiding American citizen with the rights afforded by the Constitution and state & federal laws. If I were in the state where the law says I'm required to prove my immigration status to police officer even though I am an American citizen - then I will comply even if I disagree with the law and even if I believe the law is unconstitutional. Law's the law. The street is not a place to debate with cop whether or not the law is unconstitutional or not.

You know that I have several cop/lawyer friends in NY-NJ. I know the limit. I don't intend to be a smart-ass jerk to "troll/bait/incite" them into committing wrong-doing against me. I hate wise-ass people like that. Remember the "Don't-Taze-Me-Bro" guy or anybody who filmed themselves with intention to confront the cops like cops parking on fire lane? :roll:

Be cool. Be smart. Know your rights. Talk with the cop, not argue with the cop. It's not illegal to stand your ground against police to a reasonable degree. Police officer is human being. They do make mistake. They do not always know the fine-print laws. If the conversation is going nowhere - then you can either choose to comply or get arrested. Up to you.