Arizona SB 1070. The "Illegal Immigrant law"

[Ping]

I personally don't consider the issue partisan. Illegals are a problem even up north here. I honestly can't understand why it has become a partisan issue.

 

And I kind of have to agree with Jae on this one. Everyone should be stopped so it doesn't look (not saying it is, just saying it might look it) discriminatory.

[DarthJacen]

Agreed, when you get pulled over, the officer should ask for your name, license, registration, proof of insurance (AZ at least), by simply having the license in AZ, you are here legally. As long as you have those three in your car the rest becomes routine.

[Darth Avlectus]

I don't think any of us who've commented (yet) really have any other problems with it.

 

We have our differences as to specifics. But really, I don't see it as a partisan issue.

 

I have known people who came here legally and took the time (~11 years), paid their dues and came here respectfully. When they see others come here illegally, it upsets them. I can understand why. Outward they'll care for the country. Inward they'll think "Why did I even bother doing it the legal way?".

 

That is unfair. Hold everyone to the same standard.

 

We're giving out basically open arms with formality, what's wrong with them meeting us halfway? Try to go into Mexico illegally and see what happens.

[Tommycat]

Where I hunt, you can drive across the Rio Grande in a Jeep or a 4 wheel drive. Don't know about the entire 1254 miles, but the parts I've seen are no deeper waist high to a few inches.

 

Good point. But much of the Rio Grande is far deeper. I also mentioned that while some parts are pretty shallow a great deal is not. This again makes choke points. But as I said before. I recognize that TX HAS a problem with immigration(and being FROM there I'd be lieing if I said otherwise). I just don't think it's gotten as bad as AZ has. Note that the nation spends $100B on illegal immigrants. And that's AFTER you take out the $13B that they bring in.

 

Our state budget deficit was $1.3B. Interestingly, the amount we spend on illegal immigrants: $1.3B(We actually got that deficit erased by way of an increase in state sales tax. but then we have to).

 

@GTA Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I didn't want it to come off as condemning Obama specifically. The reality is that while we as citizens recognize the problems of illegal immigration, Those in Washington DC with the power to act have chosen to turn this into a pure partisan issue. Most states are taking sides on the issue almost purely along party lines. And DC it's almost perfectly divided along party lines. With only the Democratic Congresspersons from AZ breaking ranks(as far as I've seen).

[mimartin]

And that's AFTER you take out the $13B that they bring in.

Most of that would be easy to fix. Stop the wire transfers from illegals working in this country make every pay day back to Mexico or at the very least heavily tax that money. Make them spend the money they made here, here. Again, I have no problem with Arizona SB 1070 other than I see fact it can be used by the more unscrupulous for race profiling. However, it is not going to solve the problem. Passing laws that dry up the incentive for being here would do more. Cut off the money and you end those incentives. The problem with that; is the businesses that hire cheap labor and the companies that make money off these wire transfers will scream bloody murder. I have no doubt they will find other ways to transfer the money, but at least we would not be making it easy for them.

 

1,254 > 389

[Tommycat]

Most of that would be easy to fix. Stop the wire transfers from illegals working in this country make every pay day back to Mexico or at the very least heavily tax that money. Make them spend the money they made here, here. Again, I have no problem with Arizona SB 1070 other than I see fact it can be used by the more unscrupulous for race profiling. However, it is not going to solve the problem. Passing laws that dry up the incentive for being here would do more. Cut off the money and you end those incentives. The problem with that; is the businesses that hire cheap labor and the companies that make money off these wire transfers will scream bloody murder. I have no doubt they will find other ways to transfer the money, but at least we would not be making it easy for them.

 

1,254 > 389

 

Part of what you are asking for has already been done, and has been strengthened by SB-1070. As for the racial profiling... really? HOW does it allow for that? It SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS that. Officers can't do this any more because of this bill than they could already. If it's a racist cop, he could simply do that with the DUI laws. He could do that with ANY law. This law does not invite it anymore than any other law. Abuse of power is abuse of power. They can't just stop anyone for being suspected of being an illegal. That person must violate another law FIRST. If he's a racist cop, he'd just use the DUI laws, rather than this law.

[mimartin]

That person must violate another law FIRST. If he's a racist cop, he'd just use the DUI laws, rather than this law.

 

If you really believe that, I’ll let George Strait do my talking.

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Most of that would be easy to fix. Stop the wire transfers from illegals working in this country make every pay day back to Mexico or at the very least heavily tax that money. Make them spend the money they made here, here. {snip } Passing laws that dry up the incentive for being here would do more. Cut off the money and you end those incentives. The problem with that; is the businesses that hire cheap labor and the companies that make money off these wire transfers will scream bloody murder. I have no doubt they will find other ways to transfer the money, but at least we would not be making it easy for them.

Hear Here! A solution that would at least hurt them where it counts!!

 

I would like to hear how those companies that make their money off illegal immigrants using their wire x-fer system to bilk the American public will scream bloody murder and not be laughed at outright? I cannot see a defensible position, even in our laissez-faire economy.

[mimartin]

I cannot see a defensible position, even in our laissez-faire economy.

The defense is the same as it’s always been***** not my argument**** It goes against NAFTA and it would hurt trade. Problem with that is what I wrote did not include U.S. citizens. Of course, those working here illegally could get around my solution by having U.S. citizen wire the money for them. Build a fence; they go through, over or under. Pass a law requiring proper Identification, forgers and identity thefts make a killing. There is no easy or ready solution and it is a losing fight as long as Americans want cheap labor. 20 years from now we will be discussing what a joke Arizona SB 1070 is, just like we look at the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 today.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

The defense is the same as it’s always been***** not my argument**** It goes against NAFTA and it would hurt trade. Problem with that is what I wrote did not include U.S. citizens. Of course, those working here illegally could get around my solution by having U.S. citizen wire the money for them. Build a fence; they go through, over or under. Pass a law requiring proper Identification, forgers and identity thefts make a killing. There is no easy or ready solution and it is a losing fight as long as Americans want cheap labor. 20 years from now we will be discussing what a joke Arizona SB 1070 is, just like we look at the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 today.

Well, I meant a defensible position that the American public wouldn't laugh at... but there I go again over-estimating American brainpower...

 

In 20 years, will we be joking about SB1070 in English or Spanish? Real question. I speak both, as I can say I saw this coming a loooong time ago and decided I'd prepare a little.

[Totenkopf]

You almost have to wonder why if the overhyped "concern" that 1070 will lead to racial profiling were so compelling that the govt doesn't reference or highlight it in its lawsuit vs AZ. This lawsuit is about nothing other than politics. The govt looks bad b/c it does nothing and resents AZ keeping that glaring fault in the public spotlight and it interferes w/BO and like minded people that want amnesty for illegals rather than "border security". The solution to the problem is not going to be a one-sided approach. Both the law breaking illegals and the economic incentives that keep them coming have to be hit simultaneously. No more free govt benefits (public ed, "anchor babies", etc...) for these people.

 

While I agree that going after $$ transfers could help clamp down, how do you go after that w/o penalizing American citizens sending money to relatives living abroad? How much of a tax do you put on $$ going somewhere outside the US in your effort to stop $$ leaving America? And what right does the govt have to "tax" money in that fashion that it can't prove was made illegally here in the US? Do the banks now have to risk some variation on racial/country profiling so the politicans don't? If you dry up the jobs and benefits that illegals come here for in the first place, then $$ transfers are rendered moot.......can't send what you don't have. Not saying it's a bad idea, though, just wondering how you can implement it w/o unintended consequences. There's more than one way to send money than just Western Union as well as the possibility that the illegals just keep the cash here and don't send it or utilize some other way to do an end run around the system.

[mimartin]

You almost have to wonder why if the overhyped "concern" that 1070 will lead to racial profiling were so compelling that the govt doesn't reference or highlight it in its lawsuit vs AZ.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn’t someone actually have to be wronged (profiled) by the law before you can bring that issue before the judiciary? Could that actually be why it was not refereed to or highlighted within the lawsuit?

 

While I agree that going after $$ transfers could help clamp down, how do you go after that w/o penalizing American citizens sending money to relatives living abroad?

Same way you determine if someone is an American citizen when they are pulled over. Ask for identification. Banks and wire services should do that anyways based on the anti-money laundering laws. The only difference is there could be no profiling because you are not going by someone’s “feelings” everyone would have to prove citizenship.

 

How much of a tax do you put on $$ going somewhere outside the US in your effort to stop $$ leaving America?[/Quote] No clue, as that would have to be something determined by Congress. If I were allowed to write the law, then I would go with 35% unless someone can show me where a majority of illegals are paying both Federal income taxes and state taxes. I would split that 20% for the Federal Government and 15% for the state and mandate that 5% of the federal money go to INS.

Do the banks now have to risk some variation on racial/country profiling so the politicans don't?

If you check everyone, then it is not profiling.

If you dry up the jobs and benefits that illegals come here for in the first place, then $$ transfers are rendered moot.......can't send what you don't have.[/Quote] Remind me, how well did that work when it was attempted in 1986?

 

There's more than one way to send money than just Western Union as well as the possibility that the illegals just keep the cash here and don't send it or utilize some other way to do an end run around the system.

Wasn't just talking about western union when talking about wiring money, tell you what go to your local back and ask them about transferring money to Mexico. You will find out how easy it really is. I'd even venture to say Western Union is not how the majority of money is going to Mexico, if the lines at the local bank are any indication on Thursday and Friday, then Banks have taken over that market.

[Totenkopf]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn’t someone actually have to be wronged (profiled) by the law before you can bring that issue before the judiciary? Could that actually be why it was not refereed to or highlighted within the lawsuit?

 

Well, that's an interesting legal question. If the oft quoted objection to the law is that it's going to be that it's basically racist, one would think that filing a lawsuit against a law that hasn't gone into effect would be based on something more than misrepresentation and fear mongering. What the fed's case seems to say is that they have nothing that proves that allegation but purile conjecture. A means to twist public opinion and little else.

 

Same way you determine if someone is an American is citizen when they are pulled over. Ask for identification. Banks and wire services should do that anyways based on the anti-money laundering laws. The only difference is there could be no profiling because you are not going by someone’s “feelings” everyone would have to prove citizenship.

 

One problem here is conterfeit ids. No real foolproof way to get around that. Other is that wiring (be it Western Union or any other bank/institution) may then replaced by other means to send that cash back to their home countries. Then there's always the possibility of a cut-out of sorts (ie have someone "legal" take care of it for you). More than one way to skin that cat.

 

No clue, as that would have to be something determined by Congress. If I were allowed to write the law, then I would go with 35% unless someone can show me where a majority of illegals are paying both Federal income taxes and state taxes. I would split that 20% for the Federal Government and 15% for the state and mandate that 5% of the federal money go to INS.

 

Seems pretty presumptuous to put that hefty a fine on wired monies when you don't know either their source of origin or final destination (ie not merely the country on the receiving end). You'd have to be a lot more discriminating than just merely saying "slap a tax on wires" b/c that's overkill. Much like what Salazar is attempting in the Gulf right now.

 

 

Remind me, how well did that work when it was attempted in 1986?

Remind me, was it actually really tried then... That was amnesty, the same mistake that BO and the dems want to inflict on America yet again.

 

Wasn't just talking about western union when talking about wiring money, tell you what go to your local back and ask them about transferring money to Mexico. You will find out how easy it really is. I'd even venture to say Western Union is not how the majority of money is going to Mexico, if the lines at the local bank are any indication on Thursday and Friday, then Banks have taken over that market.

 

You'll have to forgive me as I didn't take you only literally on western union (ie. I figured you were using that as shorthand for wiring in general). Problem is that you can't just single out Mexico and it's presumptuous that banks should have to assume that all money going out by wire is somehow afoul of the law. Banks wire money overseas all the time. How does the fed have the right to take any cut based on merely the possibility that it might be "ill-gotten" w/o some form of due process?

 

Big problem in the end, though, seems to be that even if we had/have some effective means to stop it w/o adversely affecting legitimate transactions, the political will isn't quite there yet as witnessed by current events. However, as I indicated, if a fair way could be devised to accurately target what monies crossing the wires were "illegal", w/o impacting others, I'd see that as a positive tool. Just one more way besides drying up job ops, benefits and anchor babies to disincentivize illegals from coming here.

[mimartin]

Are you even reading what I write or am I just wasting my time answering you? What part of illegal aliens wiring money exactly singles out Mexico? How presumptuous is it to fine those illegal aliens? In no way have I suggested taxing money sent anywhere. Should anyone besides someone here illegally send the money, then it would not be subject to my proposal.

 

I believe there are laws against counterfeit ids, if that is your problem then I suggest you should also be opposed to Arizona SB 1070 as it suffers from the same problem.

 

If you don’t understand the full extent of what the 1986 bill was suppose to do, maybe you should read it before merely declaring it an amnesty bill.

 

I'd also suggest you look at the lawsuit; it has to do with state and federal rights. I disagree with the suit, because if the fed is so worried about its power, then it should not relinquished those rights by not enforcing its own laws including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

[Tommycat]

I disagree with the suit, because if the fed is so worried about its power, then it should not relinquished those rights by not enforcing its own laws including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

 

Not to mention Section 287(g) in which it specifically gives that right to local law enforcement. It's why Sheriff Joe has been able to do this for the past few years. So for the Sheriff's department, nothing has changed at all. They've been able to do this already.

 

And back to your supposition that I'm silly to believe they would use DUI law before this. Which one is EVERY protection group in the US and even abroad going to look at. I mean we have our Draconian DUI law, that can be used to threaten and intimidate people. Or SB 1070 that is being watched like a hawk.

 

I don't think that SB1070 will be as much of a joke in 20 years. I mean even back in 86 the IRCA was a joke. It may even be seen as a "turning point" in which the state and local law enforcement was given the ability to help do something. Especially since this bill strongly goes after BUSINESSES that hire illegals, and those smuggling them in(a full half of the bill). Thus drying up the reason for coming in illegally in the first place. IRCA gave blanket amnesty and a "path to citizenship" for those in the country illegally. It still allowed for subcontractors to bring in illegal aliens for the purpose of work. This bill specifically prohibits that practice. IRCA did not require the employer to verify the authenticity of any documents presented. With SB1070 there is a requirement to verify through eVerify AND to maintain those documents through the employees' time there or 3 years, whichever is longer.

[mimartin]

Sorry, I should have cut the DUI part out of the quote in my comment. I am very uncomfortable discussing DUI in any shape or form for personal reasons. My comment was more to the fact that you wrote.

That person must violate another law FIRST

In the real world outside of the legislator people are pulled over in the United State every day because the officers suspects they may have violated a law. They look suspicious to the officer. The officer can use any law to do this, the easiest being crossing the white line, following too closely or something like driving too fast for road conditions. The true intent is to ascertain who the person is and what they are doing there. So if you believe someone has to actually violate another law First. Then I do have some Ocean Front Property in Arizona for sale. I will even throw in the Golden Gate Bridge for free.

[DarthJacen]

If anyone, actually, takes him up on his "offer", they are more ignorant that George W. Bush in an engineering calculus class.

 

Anyway, we seem to be going around in circles on this thread, maybe we should all take a break and go back to modifying seven year-old games.

[Totenkopf]

Are you even reading what I write or am I just wasting my time answering you? What part of illegal aliens wiring money exactly singles out Mexico? How presumptuous is it to fine those illegal aliens? In no way have I suggested taxing money sent anywhere. Should anyone besides someone here illegally send the money, then it would not be subject to my proposal.

 

I believe there are laws against counterfeit ids, if that is your problem then I suggest you should also be opposed to Arizona SB 1070 as it suffers from the same problem.

 

If you don’t understand the full extent of what the 1986 bill was suppose to do, maybe you should read it before merely declaring it an amnesty bill.

 

I'd also suggest you look at the lawsuit; it has to do with state and federal rights. I disagree with the suit, because if the fed is so worried about its power, then it should not relinquished those rights by not enforcing its own laws including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

 

Yeah, like you I just go into high dudgeon mode when disagreed with and read nothing. .

 

I asked you what you would do and you said "No clue, as that would have to be something determined by Congress". You have some idea of how much you might want to charge, but offer no way (beyond somebody else trying to figure it out) how to determine which amounts of money are "illegal" and thus subject to your proposed tax and which aren't. That was the point.

 

Also, since I never said I was against making it difficult to hit the illegals in their wallet, your petulant fit is misplaced. The problem is determining which monies would be subject. Do you propose making the banks force everyone to prove where the pre-wired money came from? Does everyone now have to take a paycheck stub to the bank/WU/etc.. to avoid being subjected to this "tax"? The devil is in the details, on which you are admittedly sparse.

 

Point about the 1986 law is that it was effectively all show and set the ground for the problem we have today. More laws/regulations that are created and then never really enforced. As you stated..."what it was supposed to do"....and apparently didn't.

 

As to Mexico, it was the only country you listed, thus the one I dealt with in my reply. But it really is irrelevant b/c the same problems apply no matter which countries you list in the end.

 

I'm aware of the lawsuit, dude. Why I brought up the bit about all their hysteria about "discrimination" being a red herring. They know that kind of argument won't fly in the courts, just with public opinion.

 

I disagree with the suit, because if the fed is so worried about its power, then it should not relinquished those rights by not enforcing its own laws including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

 

On this much, at least, we don't seem to disagree.

[mimartin]

Yeah, like you I just go into high dudgeon mode when disagreed with and read nothing. .[/Quote] Speak for yourself, but that is good to know.

 

The problem is determining which monies would be subject. Do you propose making the banks force everyone to prove where the pre-wired money came from?[/Quote]Why? That is not something the banks or wire services should be worried about. If they are suspicious then they should report that suspicion to the Department of the Treasury and local law enforcement. To people that are train to uncover that type of activity, and frankly that is the LAW now. Only thing I purposed that if someone is here illegally then their transaction should be taxed. Why did I write that. (see post 79 and post 80).

 

Never wrote here it would solve all the problems. Even wrote that illegals would find a way around it (see Post 84).

 

The devil is in the details, on which you are admittedly sparse.[/Quote]Most of the details you bring up are irrelevant and either have nothing to do with what I suggested or are already covered by laws in place. I’m no expert at law nor have I ever presented myself to be. I know a little about tort and business law from schooling and my job, but nowhere near enough to write a comprehensive law without enough loopholes to drive a truck through. All your redundant questions are doing is attempting to muddy the waters .

 

As to Mexico, it was the only country you listed, thus the one I dealt with in my reply.[/Quote] I used the term Mexico, because I was responding to Tommycat’s post (post 79), most of the problems with illegals in the border states of Mexico are with Mexican National here illegally. I assumed that anyone would know that by using the term illegals I was not signaling out one nationality.

 

Point about the 1986 law is that it was effectively all show and set the ground for the problem we have today. More laws/regulations that are created and then never really enforced. As you stated..."what it was supposed to do"....and apparently didn't.[/Quote]So does that mean you don’t feel any longer that it was merely an amnesty bill?

I'm aware of the lawsuit, dude. Why I brought up the bit about all their hysteria about "discrimination" being a red herring. They know that kind of argument won't fly in the courts, just with public opinion.[/Quote] They don’t know if it will or will not fly and neither does anyone else until the law in implemented and then they will have to wait until either no one is harmed by the bill or if someone considers themself to be racially profiled because of the bill. You can’t sue because the fan you are using may cut off your finger, you have to wait until you are actually harmed and then show how that harm was caused by the negligent actions of another.

[Tommycat]

Sorry, I should have cut the DUI part out of the quote in my comment. I am very uncomfortable discussing DUI in any shape or form for personal reasons. My comment was more to the fact that you wrote. In the real world outside of the legislator people are pulled over in the United State every day because the officers suspects they may have violated a law. They look suspicious to the officer. The officer can use any law to do this, the easiest being crossing the white line, following too closely or something like driving too fast for road conditions. The true intent is to ascertain who the person is and what they are doing there. So if you believe someone has to actually violate another law First. Then I do have some Ocean Front Property in Arizona for sale. I will even throw in the Golden Gate Bridge for free.

 

And if a cop does that, my girlfriend at the Public Defender's office and a number of ACLU lawyers just chomping at the bit will be all over that cop. Once it's established that a cop is racist that follows that cop(as has already happened in at least one case here that I know of). They've already prepped themselves for taking down any cop they feel is racist. And as noted in the training video they are going to have to show where that suspicion came from. "Well he looked Mexican" isn't going to fly.

[mimartin]

Thank your girlfriend for being a public defender, then ask her what they are going to do when the Police Officer says he pulled over the brown skin man/women because he was following too closely. Most police officers I know are fairly intelligent. They will not say "he/she looked Mexican."

[Totenkopf]

Speak for yourself, but that is good to know.

Has trouble recognizing sarcasm, filing for future reference.

 

 

Why? That is not something the banks or wire services should be worried about. If they are suspicious then they should report that suspicion to the Department of the Treasury and local law enforcement. To people that are train to uncover that type of activity, and frankly that is the LAW now. Only thing I purposed that if someone is here illegally then their transaction should be taxed. Why did I write that. (see post 79 and post 80).

 

Never wrote here it would solve all the problems. Even wrote that illegals would find a way around it (see Post 84).

 

Nor did I ever accuse you of that statement, so the charge is pointless. How is the bank supposed to determine if the money being sent is on behalf of an illegal? If they can actually make that determination, then perhaps they should be contacting ICE rather than openly facilitating such illegal practices. Oh, wait a minute, why bother.....the feds aren't gonna do anything anyway....

 

 

 

 

Most of the details you bring up are irrelevant and either have nothing to do with what I suggested or are already covered by laws in place. I’m no expert at law nor have I ever presented myself to be. I know a little about tort and business law from schooling and my job, but nowhere near enough to write a comprehensive law without enough loopholes to drive a truck through. All your redundant questions are doing is attempting to muddy the waters.

 

Hardly, just pointing out how impractical it might prove to be. Cops aren't allowed to ascertain the nationality of an individual, but the banks are supposed to. Nice.

 

 

I used the term Mexico, because I was responding to Tommycat’s post (post 79), most of the problems with illegals in the border states of Mexico are with Mexican National here illegally. I assumed that anyone would know that by using the term illegals I was not signaling out one nationality.

 

So, which is it....I'm supposed to interpret what you say or accept it at face value. You've apparently now accused me of both tactics. Besides, when I mentioned WU, you took pains to point out that WU wasn't just WU, but shorthand for all wiring ops. What's good for the goose....

 

 

 

So does that mean you don’t feel any longer that it was merely an amnesty bill?

 

You can call it what you like. It didn't deter the previous illegal immigration problem from snowballing. As long as the feds make laws they don't seem to want to enforce, but which make them look like they are doing something, it doesn't really matter what they say. If you ignore laws and they aren't enforced, it's like they weren't written anyway.

 

 

They don’t know if it will or will not fly and neither does anyone else until the law in implemented and then they will have to wait until either no one is harmed by the bill or if someone considers themself to be racially profiled because of the bill. You can’t sue because the fan you are using may cut off your finger, you have to wait until you are actually harmed and then show how that harm was caused by the negligent actions of another.

 

The only redundant and muddying aspect of the topic is the incessant wolf-crying about the bill being inherently racist. You posted replies to TC that indicate you buy into that interpretation yourself.

[mimartin]

So, which is it....I'm supposed to interpret what you say or accept it at face value. You've apparently now accused me of both tactics. Besides, when I mentioned WU, you took pains to point out that WU wasn't just WU, but shorthand for all wiring ops. What's good for the goose....

I wrote wire transfers.

Most of that would be easy to fix. Stop the wire transfers from illegals working in this country make every pay day back to Mexico or at the very least heavily tax that money. Make them spend the money they made here, here. Again, I have no problem with Arizona SB 1070 other than I see fact it can be used by the more unscrupulous for race profiling. However, it is not going to solve the problem. Passing laws that dry up the incentive for being here would do more. Cut off the money and you end those incentives. The problem with that; is the businesses that hire cheap labor and the companies that make money off these wire transfers will scream bloody murder. I have no doubt they will find other ways to transfer the money, but at least we would not be making it easy for them.

Not Western Union. Banks do wire transfers too.

 

I'm done this has just became too silly.

[Jae Onasi]

People, people people--chill out. That's a moderator order. Thanks.

[Tommycat]

Thank your girlfriend for being a public defender, then ask her what they are going to do when the Police Officer says he pulled over the brown skin man/women because he was following too closely. Most police officers I know are fairly intelligent. They will not say "he/she looked Mexican."

 

They look at the whole of the officer's record each time. If the officer shows a pattern of pulling one group over then it will be pretty obvious. Most DUI stops take place with more than one officer(at least here). They must also run through the checklist of things that must occur to decide if the person might not be a legal resident. Again, read some of the things that the video explains you must do to verify if the person is not a legal resident.

 

Not saying that none will, just that if he does, it'll become very obvious.