Hello Righty's:

Come on. You can tell me. Do you think it's Constitutional for the cops to be able to demand to see the papers of individuals based upon their race?

I don't know what Constitution you want to restore, but it ain't one I'm familiar with.

excon

What are you talking about ?

The 4th amendment is easy to read .
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".

This doesn't make an exception to anyone based on race. In addition the 14th amendment reinforces that point.

Now I know that this is a setup question and you have some specific instance in mind.

My guess is that you are thinking of the new Az law . My answer is that is also covered under the word unreasonable .

But just imagine how oh lets say academic this discussion would be if there was a wall preventing endless waves of illegals to cross into the State ? Gee ;maybe there would be no reason for Az to consider such a law.You can thank the negligence of the federal government for Az feeling the need to pass this measure.

Tom you have said the intrepretation of this surrounds the word unreasonable but I would suggest it surrounds the word people. Who are the people to whom it refers. Does it refer to all the people of the World? No, the preamble is specific, and I suggest other parts are specific in specifying citizens. So the question becomes what is unreasonable in relation to a citizen may be reasonable for a non citizen. Is a citizen merely a person who lives in a particular place? Do I become a citizen by stepping across the border?

I would suggest that if a law officer first enquired whether a person is a citizen he does not violate that persons rights by then asking for written confirmation any more than he does by asking the young driver of a car to see his license

Clete ;excellent point. This is also a distinction Excon often misses. Perhaps it's due to his theory that the US constitution is universally applied even though most of the world doesn't live under it's tenets. It is the key point in my debate with Ex over wiretapping also .

I had that discussion with ex before, he just thinks "we the people" means the authors, not the citizens of the nation. That's how he can justify giving U.S. constitutional rights to foreign enemies in a time of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That's how he can justify giving U.S. constitutional rights to foreign enemies in a time of war.

---

Hello again, Steve:

If you only understood what the words in our founding documents mean, world peace would break out. But, you don't.

Here's the deal. In our Deceleration of Independence, Jefferson claims that we are endowed, by our creator, with "unalienable rights". To me, that means, for the first time in the history of the world, people HAVE rights. And, they have them AUTOMATICALLY, by virtue of being a person. Before that, only kings had rights. That is a unique concept. It's distinctly American. As a matter of fact, that concept IS the central core belief of our system... Frankly, I thought we ALL embraced those ideas.

I'm saddened to find that YOU folks still cling to the worn out anti American idea, that we're GIVEN these rights by the government. Therefore, we can CHOOSE who the government is going to GIVE them to next.

THAT fundamental misunderstanding of how our system works, and who we are as a nation, is the reason we have the disagreements we do.

excon

PS> By the way, I don't think of our Constitutional Rights as being a "get out of jail free" card, like you apparently do. After all, we ARE the worlds LARGEST jailer. Certainly, we couldn't have achieved that milestone if they were.

Quote:

---

YOU, on the other hand, think we're GIVEN these rights by the government, and therefore we can CHOOSE who the government is going to GIVE them to next.

---

I doubt that is Steve's position and certainly not mine, Read a little further in the Declaration (next sentence ) you find that the founders believed

Quote:

---

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

---

In other words they may very well believe that their values are universal ;but do not necessarily apply to people in other nations . In fact it would be too much for us to do to secure those rights for all humans. We in this nation secure our rights for our nation and there are no guarantees for others . That was also reinforced as Steve said by the preamble to the Constitution where they made it very plain that the document of laws and rights applied only to "We the people" .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

In other words they may very well believe that their values are universal ;but do not necessarily apply to people in other nations . In fact it would be too much for us to do to secure those rights for all humans.

---

Hello again, tom:

The words... "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed", do NOT, in my view, modify the previous sentiment. They don't even come CLOSE to saying that.

Plus, you say our founders thought that rights were universal, but not necessarily?? That makes NO SENSE on it's face. One thing our founders did, was MAKE sense. Besides, I don't believe they were conflicted or hypocritical like you suggest they were.

By the way, who said that it's too much to do? Certainly, not Ronald Reagan when he saw his shining city on the hill. Being a world leader ain't for sissy's.

excon

Yes shining city on a hill is a worthy sentiment and goal . But even President Reagan understood the limits of the country's power.It reminds me of the platitudes in the Monroe Doctrine at a time when James Monroe had absolutely zero ability to prevent European nations from encroaching .

It's easy to deem it so ,much more difficult to execute.

I'll go back to the Az example. The State has been forced to deal with an impossible situation being one of the point states in dealing with porus borders that are a Federal responsibilties to control . They suffer a disproportionate cost because of their location to the border and are having their hands tied behind their backs in their attempt to maintain some kind of control against what is an invasion... there are no better terms to describe it.

It is more than reasonable for an officer to ask someone to produce papers upon the occasion of resonable suspicion. This occures routinely in traffic situation and I have yet to hear this massive outcry by the we the people that rights are being violated . We think instead it is reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'll go back to the Az example. The State has been forced to deal with an impossible situation...

It is more than reasonable for an officer to ask someone to produce papers upon the occasion of resonable suspicion. This occures routinely in traffic situation and I have yet to hear this massive outcry by the we the people that rights are being violated .

---

Hello again, tom:

Yes, I was aiming at Arizona. I don't disagree with you that the state has been forced to act because the federal government is not.

Nonetheless, this ISN'T the way to do it. I also don't disagree with you that the cops DO have the right to ask to see your papers based upon "reasonable suspicion". The problem with THIS law, is the only way a cop could possibly HAVE reasonable suspicion about ones immigration status, is based on race. That's racial profiling, and you can't do that here in the good old US of A, even if it IS reasonable. It has to be CONSTITUTIONAL, not just reasonable, and it ain't.

excon

It is ridiculous to imagine that everyone with brown skin in Arizona will suddenly come under surveillance .Probable cause still has to be established. The law just lowers the bar as to what qualifies as probable cause. But the words probable cause is used a number of times in the new law . So your fear of cops indiscriminently stopping Hispanics is unfounded.

The Supreme Court has already decided that it is legal for police to stop anyone and request valid identification;and refusing to produce one can indeed be reasonable suspicion.(Hiibel v Sixth )

Drivers are required to produce on demand their driver's license and legal immigrants are also required to produce their "green card " upon demand . I don't see how this law violates anyone's rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't see how this law violates anyone's rights.

---

Hello again, tom:

The legality of the law rests on the answer to a simple question. How do you reasonably suspect someone of being an illegal alien, if NOT for their race? You discussed everything BUT that, yet THAT is the only question.

excon

Scenario . I the policeman see a pick up truck stopping by a group of day laborers and 20 of them squeeze into the truck . I think I have probable cause to stop the truck (what the driver did is most likely a violation of the traffic laws ) ,and to ask all the passengers to produce a valid ID .

That's just one of many examples I could think of. OK I'll give you another... a bunch of Minute men doing the job the Federal Government won't do ;sitting on the border, observe a bunch of people crossing the border.
Knowing that the Feds won't do anything they call Sheriff Arpaio . With this law ,he now has the enforcement tool he has been looking for to do his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

scenario . I the policeman see a pick up truck stopping by a group of day laborers and 20 of them squeeze into the truck

---

Hello again, tom:

That is about the only scenario wherein a cop might suspect people are illegal. Although, I don't think the cops are going to hang out at Home Depot or Lowe's all day. That's the ONLY place that could happen, because people jamming into a truck from the parking lot of McDonald's DOESN'T indicate that they're illegal OR day laborers.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

That is about the only scenario wherein a cop might suspect people are illegal. Although, I don't think the cops are gonna hang out at Home Depot or Lowes all day. That's the ONLY place that could happen, because people jamming into a truck from the parking lot of McDonald's DOESN'T indicate that they're illegal OR day laborers.

excon

---

However Ex you have provided the ideal scenario where a law officer might suspect some of those people are illegal without racially profiling them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

However Ex you have provided the ideal scenario where a law officer might suspect some of those people are illegal without racially profiling them

---

Hello clete:

Probably. But, after they clean out Home Depot and Lowe's, what are they going to do?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

Probably. But, after they clean out Home Depot and Lowes, what are they gonna do?

excon

---

Ah well there is always McDonells, I hear they hire cheap labour

Is anyone with a different accent, let alone skin color, probable cause?
How about a Russian accent in a prostitute? Or an Indian accent behind the counter at the gas station store? Sorry, but most small town cops are not trained enough to be constitutional scholars.


G&P


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ah well there is always McDonells, I hear they hire cheap labour

---

Hello again, clete:

I only caved on Home Depot and Lowe's because I personally think most of those people are illegal. I have NO idea if that's so, but if a cop thought like me, he COULD harass people at Home Depot.

But, McDonald's hires all sorts of people, and most of them are citizens. So, NO, they couldn't reasonably assume, because a person works there, that they're illegal.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

I only caved on Home Depot and Lowes because I personally think most of those people are illegal. I have NO idea if that's so, but if a cop thought like me, he COULD harass people at Home Depot.

But, McDonald's hires all sorts of people, and most of them are citizens. So, NO, they couldn't reasonably assume, because a person works there, that they're illegal.

excon

---

I think you are getting the point Ex there are many ways to profile people and not all of them are racial. I thought police officers had certain training that allowed them to home in on the criminal class surely that training would be useful in observing behaviour. What it means is that police forces need to be better trained and not just someone's cousin.

I do think that it is unfortunate local police forces are being used to do the federal government's job for them but obviously there is a local problem that prompted these laws. We see law enforcement problems among certain populations, as I'm sure you do, and it is very easy to racially profile potential offenders, particularly in a given region or neighbourhood. What will happen, as is the intent of the legislators, is that these populations will depart the area and stay away. Whether that is economically desirable is another issue.