robin1234

Agreed, it looks problematic in Michigan. Maybe the Rue Canusa in Vermont/Québec is the way to go then... although crossing the road is always potentially dangerous..

More pictures

cindyabs

That's in my old growing up neck of the woods, .

robin1234

That is a beautiful part of the world. We spent a week up there once, visited Magog and cycled around Beebe Plain and Stanstead among other simple pleasures. That was when the kids were little and it was very easy to keep them amused! We tried to see how many times we could cross the border in one day; probably would want to limit that to two or three these days.

cindyabs

Yes, when I was growing up, you got waved through and that was it. We went over to Stanstead to bring back a Landrace boar we had purchased. I don't remember it taking any time at the border at all.

The ex and I honeymooned in Que and Ottawa and we crossed back in at St Albans. They asked where we had been, had us pop the trunk and that was it.

Brit3964

Now my own State, SC is deciding if to "tweak" their anti-illegal immigration law passed in 2008 to mimic an AZ-style law:

S.C. mulls Arizona-like immigration measure
However, because it is late in the legislative session, it is unlikely to become law this year

A state Senate subcommittee meets this morning to discuss a bill that would empower local police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or detain.

However, it’s too late in the legislative session for the bill, which mimics Arizona’s controversial law, to become state law this year. That leads critics and political watchers to believe today’s meeting is more about political theater than creating a new law.

“By doing it when they don’t actually have time to pass the legislation, they get credit for the symbolic stand without having to worry about how to fund the measure,” said Scott Huffman, a Winthrop University political science professor.

http://www.thestate.com/2010/05/20/1...migration.html

I've already emailed the Senator responsible for the proposed bill and said "Just say NO".

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/...729545367.html

scrubbedexpat099

What would you prefer?

Brit3964

Anything but another fecked up AZ-style law! I would like it to be

a) Constitutional
b) No potential opening for abuse (ie. racism)
c) Actually workable. I think the local cops might like that too.

scrubbedexpat099

a) Constitutional

I have not heard anything to suggest that it does not meet the Arizona Constitution. I guess it might help the Eric et al if they read it first before making comments on the Federal level.

b) No potential opening for abuse (ie. racism)

Specifically addressed in the AZ Law

c) Actually workable. I think the local cops might like that too.

Time will tell (it has not gone into force yet}. Seems a lot more workable than anything the Feds have tried.

A I

Can you tell us your opinion on: How, without using race as a basis, do you develop "reasonable suspicion" without questioning the "suspect" first as it regards to his legal status ?

Brit3964

It might meet AZ's Constitution but I doubt it'll meet the USA's Constitution.

They think it was by removing one word but the rest remains the same. Under this law one could still be arrested on the basis of race should a cop decide to do so. In reality, who is most likely to be targeted? The white, blue eyed blonde or the dark, Hispanic-looking one?

Some laws before they are enacted just scream out it's wrong. This is one of them. I'm sure the cops have many other more important things to do than play immigration officer. Catching real criminals maybe?

A I

This may or may not be true...depending on the priority of the police force at the time... Maybe they caught everyone else that week, and only the "fake/non-real" illegal immigrants are left. (As if...)

But even if this were true, In the US there is no easy way to do it without trampling on the rights of citizens, so it's not just a matter of priority, but also of incapacity with the system as is.

The goal/spirit of the law (To capture and deport all illegal imigrants) in my opinion cannot be attained as it was written. Checking for immigration status AFTER arrest or detention due to suspicion for another cause is already allowed and practiced in many cities. My main beef is with developing this reasonable suspicion of being here illegally BEFORE detention. Unless you have credible intelligence information, or tips from informants, etc, which are grounds for arrest under existing law, I don't see how you stop the bad guys without violating the rights of the good guys.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Your doubts are misplaced. These sorts of stops are already permitted under federal law. Arizona didn't need to pass a law in order to make such stops. Federal law does not bar states from enforcing immigration or most other federal laws.

No, that is not true. Probable cause is still required for an arrest, and race cannot be used as a sole justification to make an arrest.

It sounds as if you have an idealized view of what is acceptable under US federal law. These sorts of stops were found to be constitutional more than 40 years ago, while immigration stops away from the border were ruled to be constitutional more than three decades ago.

Above, I referred to some of the federal case law re: stops and arrests. The basic concept of requiring reasonable suspicion to justify a stop is well in line with the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted in such a way that it is legally acceptable for the police to briefly detain, question and search us with minimal cause (the "reasonable suspicion" standard, aka the "Terry stop.") You don't have the rights that you thought that you had.

sir_eccles

d) Actually likely to solve "the problem".

scrubbedexpat099

I agree it is weak, but at least it is something.

I do not know what the Police do in your area, the major concentration around here seems to be raising funds by issuing speeding tickets. Perhaps something similar could be done to incentivise them.

When I came over I was doing the school run, I was lectured about making sure they were belted up etc etc.

I mentioned that there seemed to be a lot of people driving around with children in the front with and no seat belts. I was told that they were Mexican and the Police do not bother with them!

I have also mentioned the Agricultural Trespass scam in Denver.

It may have changed but the Police could not stop you for no seat belt, if they stopped you for something else then they could add that. Weird.

meauxna

I think it's called primary vs secondary offenses. It's the same here w/the seatbelts. That was the hubub over the cell phone/hands free thingie.. they made that a primary offense, for which you could be pulled over.