Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
I don't understand where the problem is here.
I'm forty-one year old, very white, live in a nice neighborhood, and set off my home alarm by mistake a few weeks ago. The cops came a minute a later, asking for me my ID. No problems. I was a bit stunned when my California driver's license wasn't enough and I was asked to show a second form of ID. Luckily I knew exactly where my passport was.
But was that asking too much? Any time the police need to speak with you, they need to know who you are. They always ask for you ID. Asking for ID without trying to determine if you are a US citizen or not is stupid you - Again, a police officer needs to know not only who they are talking to, but if they are a US citizen or not.
|
Okay, in your instance, I think most people can see where the police would have been coming from in asking for your ID. I think that when an alarm is set off, then they have probable cause to be asking questions. I don't agree with you that police should have the right to ask you to prove citizenship, but for the sake of argument, let's say that I do.
The whole issue that I have with the Arizona bill hinges on two terms. "Lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion". The Arizona legislature could have very clearly defined those two concepts, and I imagine there would have been zero uproar from the general public. But they didn't. The concepts are left very vague, and nothing that I have read thus far shows how those terms are defined by the Arizona Judicial System.
What is lawful contact? It's far too gray an area. Does it mean that a cop can walk up to someone minding their own business, doing nothing out of the ordinary, and ask them to produce a birth certificate or passport? Point to something in the Arizona laws that defines it clearly. If the drafters of the Bill intended for the meaning to be probable cause, then why not use that term that does have legal definition?
What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Same thing as above, there is nothing to show how it is defined. Can ethnicity be a legal factor to determine reasonable suspicion? If so, even if it is combined with other things, I think that is wrong.
I do not trust police to come up with their own definition of those terms. It needs to be done clearly within the bill itself. Not for the protection of illegals, but for the protection of US citizens and legal immigrants.
I do understand that we have a huge issue with illegals. I think going after everyone that employs them is the easiest step.