Yes, how foolish for the state legislature to require all county and municipal jails to determine immigration status of arrested individuals. It’s not like the large metropolitan counties don’t already do this under an ICE program or that federal law requires ICE to assist state courts in determining immigrations status upon request of a governor or that such information might be pertinent to establishment of bail in the arraignment. Funny thing is, when arrested, anyone is required to produce their papers, provide their fingerprints, be photographed, have state, federal and international databases checked for past criminal activity and outstanding warrants.
Nor should the individual be found to be unauthorized but employed, might the information be used to arrest such employers by local authorities, as authorized by 8USC 1324c.
This one I can see as reasonable. They have to have probable cause to arrest someone first, unlike the AZ law which requires only a lawful stop – a ridiculously low standard when you consider that you can be “stopped” for something as simple as letting your feet fall outside the painted lines of the crosswalk when crossing the street (jaywalking).
I can’t believe this! Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding that I show a state issued photo ID every time I try to buy liquor, guns, get on an airplane, or try to vote! Madness! Pretty soon, you’ll be getting pulled over for being only a tiny bit over the speed limit and they’ll be running your plates to see if your car is stolen or if you are wanted for a crime! Invasion of privacy! Then, when they arrest you on trumped up charges for driving after you’ve only had a few drinks, they’ll take your picture, your fingerprints, and your license to drive away! What a fascist police state we live in! Everybody knows that enforcement of laws in NOT the job of Law Enforcement!
What if you’re in your own country and look just a little bit dark by the dawn’s early light or the twilight’s last gleaming? Should you have papers on you?
The text appears to be here. Seems straightforward enough. If you get arrested for something else, they check your immigration status. Under a quick read, I don’t really see much of a problem here. What I don’t understand is what they plan to do with people that they can’t identify, and don’t come back one way or another from the databases.
So let’s take nk’s example of ‘what if you’re in your own country and look just a little bit dark by the dawn’s early light or the twilight’s last gleaming?’ Well, if you were doing something else to be arrested, guess what, they’re going to check your immigration status, and find out that you’re here legally. Exactly the same as if you don’t look a little bit dark. If they arrest you falsely, you have the same remedies for false arrest that you’d have for any other false arrest if you’re here legally.
To me the outstanding questions are: quash the information if it was a false arrest and you weren’t here legally? My guess is that the courts would say yes, but it would be better to spell it out. Also, the question of what to do with someone who refuses to give any information at all, and doesn’t show up with a fingerprint match, etc. My guess is that person gets let go, but I don’t know.
What if you’re in your own country and look just a little bit dark by the dawn’s early light or the twilight’s last gleaming? Should you have papers on you?
You should have the exact same papers on you that demonstrate you don’t have any outstanding warrants. ‘Cause the police are going to check that too.
Yeah, this is radical. So much so that it is common practice for cities participating in the ICE 287(g) program. So much so that Philadelphia is going to terminate a long standing agreement that gave ICE access to their arrest data. Better to be a sanctuary city, I guess. But then, driving without a license arrests in Cobb county GA have declined dramatically since they started checking arrestees for immigration status.
Now remember, all that happens here is the ICE is notified and the federal government decides whether to even interview the person much less deport them. Of course, the Obama people don’t like it since if the person was reported and they did nothing then the person rapes or kills, they are on the hook.
There is a substantial difference between the AZ law and the TN law as noted above. It is important to note another substantial difference: In AZ, the cops can take them to the border and hand them over to ICE there if they choose (and I’ll bet that Sheriff Joe will do just that). Here the Sheriff’s Office will notify ICE and ICE will decide whether to come interview them (or not) and then whether to mut a hold on them (or not). We are still dependant on ICE doing their part, AZ isn’t.
Az knows ICE will do as little as possible. This law is not a huge problem really. I have mixed feelings for the Az law as it hits close to home. While I understand the reason behind the I am married to an illegal who does not want citizenship. Makes for a dicey situation if we ever visited Az though.
June 29th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Arizona has some
graceexcuse (it’s a border state and the feds are sleeping on the job). Tennessee does not.June 29th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Holy hell.. what’s next? Cops asking for proof of insurance and registration????
June 29th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Yes, how foolish for the state legislature to require all county and municipal jails to determine immigration status of arrested individuals. It’s not like the large metropolitan counties don’t already do this under an ICE program or that federal law requires ICE to assist state courts in determining immigrations status upon request of a governor or that such information might be pertinent to establishment of bail in the arraignment. Funny thing is, when arrested, anyone is required to produce their papers, provide their fingerprints, be photographed, have state, federal and international databases checked for past criminal activity and outstanding warrants.
Nor should the individual be found to be unauthorized but employed, might the information be used to arrest such employers by local authorities, as authorized by 8USC 1324c.
June 29th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
This one I can see as reasonable. They have to have probable cause to arrest someone first, unlike the AZ law which requires only a lawful stop – a ridiculously low standard when you consider that you can be “stopped” for something as simple as letting your feet fall outside the painted lines of the crosswalk when crossing the street (jaywalking).
June 29th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I can’t believe this! Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding that I show a state issued photo ID every time I try to buy liquor, guns, get on an airplane, or try to vote! Madness! Pretty soon, you’ll be getting pulled over for being only a tiny bit over the speed limit and they’ll be running your plates to see if your car is stolen or if you are wanted for a crime! Invasion of privacy! Then, when they arrest you on trumped up charges for driving after you’ve only had a few drinks, they’ll take your picture, your fingerprints, and your license to drive away! What a fascist police state we live in! Everybody knows that enforcement of laws in NOT the job of Law Enforcement!
June 29th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
My only question is this:
If tourism in TN slows down, will The Tennessean blame it on this or will they blame it on restaurant carry?
June 29th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I did not read (or understand) the arrested part. I will reserve judgment. Provisionally. Anybody can be arrested for anything.
June 29th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
If I’m in a foreign country, am I supposed to carry documentation? Passport?
June 29th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
What if you’re in your own country and look just a little bit dark by the dawn’s early light or the twilight’s last gleaming? Should you have papers on you?
June 29th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
The text appears to be here. Seems straightforward enough. If you get arrested for something else, they check your immigration status. Under a quick read, I don’t really see much of a problem here. What I don’t understand is what they plan to do with people that they can’t identify, and don’t come back one way or another from the databases.
So let’s take nk’s example of ‘what if you’re in your own country and look just a little bit dark by the dawn’s early light or the twilight’s last gleaming?’ Well, if you were doing something else to be arrested, guess what, they’re going to check your immigration status, and find out that you’re here legally. Exactly the same as if you don’t look a little bit dark. If they arrest you falsely, you have the same remedies for false arrest that you’d have for any other false arrest if you’re here legally.
To me the outstanding questions are: quash the information if it was a false arrest and you weren’t here legally? My guess is that the courts would say yes, but it would be better to spell it out. Also, the question of what to do with someone who refuses to give any information at all, and doesn’t show up with a fingerprint match, etc. My guess is that person gets let go, but I don’t know.
June 29th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
What if you’re in your own country and look just a little bit dark by the dawn’s early light or the twilight’s last gleaming? Should you have papers on you?
You should have the exact same papers on you that demonstrate you don’t have any outstanding warrants. ‘Cause the police are going to check that too.
June 29th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Yeah, this is radical. So much so that it is common practice for cities participating in the ICE 287(g) program. So much so that Philadelphia is going to terminate a long standing agreement that gave ICE access to their arrest data. Better to be a sanctuary city, I guess. But then, driving without a license arrests in Cobb county GA have declined dramatically since they started checking arrestees for immigration status.
Now remember, all that happens here is the ICE is notified and the federal government decides whether to even interview the person much less deport them. Of course, the Obama people don’t like it since if the person was reported and they did nothing then the person rapes or kills, they are on the hook.
June 29th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
There is a substantial difference between the AZ law and the TN law as noted above. It is important to note another substantial difference: In AZ, the cops can take them to the border and hand them over to ICE there if they choose (and I’ll bet that Sheriff Joe will do just that). Here the Sheriff’s Office will notify ICE and ICE will decide whether to come interview them (or not) and then whether to mut a hold on them (or not). We are still dependant on ICE doing their part, AZ isn’t.
June 29th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Az knows ICE will do as little as possible. This law is not a huge problem really. I have mixed feelings for the Az law as it hits close to home. While I understand the reason behind the I am married to an illegal who does not want citizenship. Makes for a dicey situation if we ever visited Az though.