California Passes AZ's immigration law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whooaaa......

I agree, TXgolfer said it right.
 
so is "lawful contact" a tier one encounter with a LEO (yes .... yes it is).
 
and California's law:

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws,
Click to expand...

So, all a LEO in California has to do for a tier one encounter is "suspect" a person of being illegal?
 
Wirelessly posted

Note the careful use of "and." That implies the person would have to be arrested first before they can suspect him of being an alien.

Might want to read up on your legal mumbo-jumbos. :cool2:
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Note the careful use of "and." That implies the person would have to be arrested first before they can suspect him of being an alien.

Might want to read up on your legal mumbo-jumbos. :cool2:
Click to expand...

Reading up on legal mumbo jumbo has taught me that officers are perfectly within their rights to ask questions AND can arrest someone based on a suspicion ;)

Your carefully worded post .... failed.

An officer can "arrest" based on "suspicion". Therefore, when the illegal is arrested based on reasonable suspicion, the officer can then check citizenship status.
 
Wirelessly posted

Steinhauer said:
souggy said:
Note the careful use of "and." That implies the person would have to be arrested first before they can suspect him of being an alien.

Might want to read up on your legal mumbo-jumbos. :cool2:
Click to expand...

Reading up on legal mumbo jumbo has taught me that officers are perfectly within their rights to ask questions AND can arrest someone based on a suspicion ;)

Your carefully worded post .... failed.
Click to expand...

Then American legal grammar is fucked compared to ours.
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted



Then American legal grammar is fucked compared to ours.
Click to expand...

not really ......


Reasonable suspicion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


the legal requirement for arrests and warrants
Click to expand...

What THAT means ... is California's law is the same exact thing that Arizona passed ....

Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest;
however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Police can ask for identification ....
 
Wirelessly posted

No, if they intended it to be that way, they would had used "or" as a conjunction.
 
Wirelessly posted

Why does it feel like I am arguing with a drug dealer that by banning hard drugs, the government isn't legally oppressing the "right to persue livelihood" accordingly to the Canadian Charter...

I hate deja vu.
 
I ignored this thread when it was first created because I expected it to be a waste of my time since I'll most likely will repeat same old and clarify same old for you.

*reading this thread*
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Mind you, I know what he really meant.
Click to expand...

I meant to quote the post below. Under the new law, Illegal immigration is still a secondary offense. "Legal contact" as stated in the new law, means there has to be a reason for the LEO to talk to the person in the first place. This debunks Obama's Ice Cream hypothetical.

Foxrac said:
I did, they are not SAME because difference on between primary and secondary.

Primary - it means law enforcement officers are allows to check on immigration status if anyone haven't commit crime or break any laws. That's what Arizona will using in next few month when new law start effective. In my opinion, new AZ immigrant bill will create more racial profiling because high number of illegal immigrants are Latino and increasing of harassing against them because LEO are allow to check in anywhere.

Secondary - it means law enforcement officers are allows to check on immigration status after anyone commit crime or break any law, that what CA is doing, otherwise, ICE agents handle with illegal immigrants, even if they haven't break the law like in many states.

There was same CA immigrant law as new AZ immigrant bill was in 1994 until judge strike it down in late 90's.
Click to expand...
 
wwwoooowwww...... good lord... all of you are wrong. wrong. wrong. Apparently - you do need quite a bit of work on reading up on legal mumbo jumbo and that's an understatement.

wow.... I spent countless of hours and effort to clearly explain & interpret the Supreme Court ruling, federal laws, and current/new state laws for ya'all. Oh god what have I done....

29d7blg.jpg
 
LOL @ Jiro :lol:

Ok .... putting on my best serious frowny scowling expression ....

What does the first paragraph of California's law have to do with "reasonable suspicion"?

Terry Stops? Tier One law enforcement encounter?

For one thing, California made it a law that **requires** LEO's to comply with Federal Law:

Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
Click to expand...

the word "cooperate" means to "comply with".
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

No, if they intended it to be that way, they would had used "or" as a conjunction.
Click to expand...

They did intend for it to be that way ....


if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
LOL @ Jiro :lol:

Ok .... putting on my best serious frowny scowling expression ....

What does the first paragraph of California's law have to do with "reasonable suspicion"?

Terry Stops? Tier One law enforcement encounter?

For one thing, California made it a law that **requires** LEO's to comply with Federal Law:
Click to expand...

:) I will explain that.... again..... in a moment but I'm taking my time. My foot's on the table and I'm literally dozing on-off.
 
Steinhauer said:
LOL @ Jiro :lol:

Ok .... putting on my best serious frowny scowling expression ....

What does the first paragraph of California's law have to do with "reasonable suspicion"?

Terry Stops? Tier One law enforcement encounter?

For one thing, California made it a law that **requires** LEO's to comply with Federal Law:



the word "cooperate" means to "comply with".
Click to expand...

Check your dictionary. One can cooperate without compliance. Likewise, one can comply without cooperation.
And it is already illegal for an LEO not to comply with Federal law. We don't need another law stating the obvious.
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Actually, foxrac, based on how you worded that post, TXgolfer responded correctly.

You will get better at debating while you're in college.
Click to expand...

I'm already college student right now. *shrugs*

Thanks to any members whoever got my post.
 
jillio said:
Check your dictionary. One can cooperate without compliance. Likewise, one can comply without cooperation.
And it is already illegal for an LEO not to comply with Federal law. We don't need another law stating the obvious.
Click to expand...

Like the one in California that obviously does the same thing Arizona's does?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top