It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ACLU issues travel alerts for Arizona

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I never thought of this, but indeed I might need a proof of my US citizenship next time I go to AZ:

CNN link


Arizona's measure stipulates that police can ask the residency status of people being investigated for a crime.

"Although the law is not scheduled to go into effect until July 29, the ACLU is concerned that some law enforcement officers are already beginning to act on provisions of the law," the ACLU said on its website.

"We hope the alerts provide people with some measure of protection from illegal harassment from law enforcement and inform them of their rights should they encounter it."


Well, I'll just take a copy of my passport page and be a happy traveler.

Good job Arizona!


In late May, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 57 percent of those surveyed favored Arizona's new law, while 37 percent opposed it.




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Here is what the ACLU doesn't want you to know:

Arizona State Constitution, Article II; Declaration of Rights

Section 1


1. Fundamental principles; recurrence to Section 1. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.


Section 2


2. Political power; purpose of government Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.


Section 3


3. Supreme law of the land Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.


Section 4


4. Due process of law Section 4. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.


Section 7


7. Oaths and affirmations Section 7. The mode of administering an oath, or affirmation, shall be such as shall be most consistent with and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such oath, or affirmation, may be administered.


Section 8


8. Right to privacy Section 8. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.


Section 10


10. Self-incrimination; double jeopardy Section 10. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.


Section 33


33. Reservation of rights Section 33. The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.


Regardless of ones legal status, all people have inalienable rights, and this is the last thing the ACLU wants anyone to know or understand. Even so, virtually all state constitutions are remarkably clear on the matter, and as a point of law acknowledge the inalienable nature of rights.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Perhaps if push comes to shove, people would be cleared in Arizona courts if they were arrested on suspicion of being an illegal alien. From a practical, everyday standpoint, I can see why some people would be concerned if Arizona aggressively enforces its new law. Who wants to go through the hassle and inconvenience of being stopped just because you "fit the profile" of an illegal immigrant?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


You know, it states quite clearly in the O.P. that this law allows LEO's in Arizona to ask for proof of residency while investigating crimes. As far as asserting ones rights go, LEO's can often times be fully aware that if they are operating outside of their jurisdictional boundaries that they are opened up to law suits personally, and the only people who couldn't sue an LEO are illegal immigrants:

Section 35


35. Actions by illegal aliens prohibited A person who is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry by an alien shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action in any court in this state.


www.azleg.gov.../const/2/35.htm

So, unless you are an illegal immigrant, and I am pretty darn sure you are not, if push came to shove, I would suggest you shove back in the most powerful way possible and sue the crap out of any errant LEO who has violated your fundamental and inalienable rights.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I still call all this complaining about AZ crap. When police don't even need to get out of their cars to run your plates.... or use cameras to catch speeders. Just because they are targeting criminals. Why should illegals get a free pass on their law breaking? The people who should be worried are the ones with something to hide! You can't have your cake and eat it too.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 





You can't have your cake and eat it too.


The only possible way to eat your cake is to have it first. However, you cannot eat your cake and have it too. The rest of your remark I would agree with. If this is simply about asking someone about their residency while investigating a crime, then the law is not without merit.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


AHH it's all semantics with cake. How about you can't have it both ways? The tendencies for certain groups to be singled out for special treatment for good or bad is disturbing. You can't check the citizenship status of someone who is suspected of a crime? But a sex offender who did time for his or her crimes is still assumed to be guilty of something and gets to have their lives dictated as to where they live. But a person who committed multiple violent offences just walks out and other than the maybe their visits to their parole officer has no limitations on where they can live?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Just ridiculous hyperbole. The laws are not illegal and do not encourage racial profiling.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


We have all ran into overzealous cops that could care less about constitutional rights or the rule of law. From a practical standpoint, if you say that kind of thing to a cop on the street he will not take too kindly to it. Most people would much rather avoid the confrontation to begin with and not get accosted by cops just because they fit the profile.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


The type of police officer you are talking about didn't need this current legislation to be a jerk, or criminal. I don't know why you are always advocating cowardice and surrender of rights and acquiescence, which surely you must understand that a failure to assert ones rights, can legally be construed as tacit agreement that you have waived your rights and are tacitly granting jurisdiction where none would exist without that grant.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by evilminime
 


Even if the law will not lead to racial profiling, does it make it any better?

Would you prefer the cops harass people because their shoes rather than their skin matches "the profile" of an illegal immigrant? Would you prefer the cops harass people because they are wearing an illegal immigrant-like shirt rather than because they have a Spanish name?

I am no advocate of racial profiling, but at least with racial profiling we know who the cops are going to harass. If there is no racial profiling, there may be no limit to who the cops can harass. Anybody, regardless of their race, can be harassed by cops because they fit some "profile."

It will be just like the airports where the security guards will cavity search a 95 year old grandma, while letting people who are on the no-fly lists sneak bombs onto planes.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Stop misrepresenting this law, it is unbecoming an honorable man. This is not a law that endorses profiling, and if you had some sound legal reasoning as to why this legislation should be struck down, then I am fairly certain you would be speaking to that rather than presenting the legislation as something it is not.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


In a criminal law context, the only rights you need to assert are your rights to remain silent and your right to a lawyer. If anybody gets arrested and is read their Miranda warnings, they should clearly state they want to remain silent and they want a lawyer.

As far as searches are concerned, if a cop has a reasonable suspicion, they can at the very least stop and accost you. Under certain circumstances you can refuse to be searched, under other circumstances you have no say. Regardless of whether one consents or not, they are still being harassed by cops. Furthermore, many people do not have the knowledge nor the courage to refuse searches.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The letter of the law prohibits profiling. Whether this is the case in practice is a whole other matter.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


The criminal context is precisely what this law addresses. However, until I began taking you to task for your hyperbole you weren't speaking about the law in that manner. You bet that if someone is being investigated for a crime the smartest thing they can do is keep their mouth shuts, and they don't need case law to have that right to do so.

As to "reasonable suspicion", the only possible way a police officer being sued as a private citizen who obstructed justice, simulated legal process and acted under color of law, could argue "reasonable suspicion" would be by presenting credible evidence that suspicion was reasonable. If a person is going about their business and not at all guilty of any crime, and an LEO begins harassing that person demanding papers like a Nazi soldier, reasonable suspicion isn't going to work in a Title 42 law suit.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join