On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let's set up some examples. > > I am walking down the street. Can a policeman stop me and ask me for proof > of immigration status? (I say no). > I am at home, and the dog catcher comes in my yard. Can he ask me for proof > of immigration status? (I say no).
Dog catcher chases a stray into your yard, knocks on your door to tell you about the stray dog running around. Is that a legal contact? Yes, of course it is. Now, we move on to "reasonable suspicion". What is reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration status? I really don't know and that is one of the things that really disturbs me. Arizona specifically included *every single* government employee in the state in this law. Not just cops. And they relied upon the lowest level of "proof" considered in the legal system. They could have specified deputized officers of the peace, but they didn't. They could have chosen a higher burden of certainty to try and make sure that cops had a genuine reason to think that a person is an illegal immigrant. But they didn't. Arizona specifically cast the widest possible net, using the least trained people, using the lowest burden of proof possible. How can you possibly think that this isn't going to be horribly abused? And what, for God's sake, happened to your distrust of government power? I'm personally far more pissed off about, and frightened of, government abuse of power embodied in this bill than I am of illegal immigrants. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:316723 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
