I actually did not find anything called “Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)”.
1324 is certainly about illegal aliens and such, but there is no (a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
as far as I can see. Could you please include the stuff you think is relevant here? I tried to
figure out if the reference had a typo or something, but I couldn’t say for sure. Is it a new
part of the code? It’s also possible that I don’t know how to find things in the U.S.C. (not a lawyer!).

Because I don’t know what piece of the law you were referring to, I can’t tell if you think
it would be ok for the police to bring me in for questioning if I get pulled over and don’t have
proof of my U.S. citizenship.

Then I found the site I think you are quoting from, in the paragraph you posted. It actually continues
beyond what you included:
“Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient. Immigration officers and police must have a valid
warrant or valid employer’s consent to enter workplaces or residences. Any vehicle used to
transport or harbor illegal aliens, or used as a substantial part of an activity that encourages
illegal aliens to come to or reside in the U.S. may be seized by an immigration officer and is
subject to forfeiture. The forfeiture power covers any conveyances used within the U.S.”

This, together with what you provided, is the complete quote as I found it on
http://www.mnforsustain.org/immigration_hiring_law_excerpts_from_us_code.htm . Is that
where you got it?

I think maybe the ACLU’s issue is that “Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.”

So, there are two steps here. If the interpretative paragraph that you and I together have provided
is accurate (first step), and if the detention occurred due to Hispanic appearance alone (step two), then
the ACLU would seem to have a case. Also, we have to agree on what “brief” means in the phrase
“brief warrantless interrogation”.

Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

Enforcement

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. (yes…that would be considered “profiling”.)

Another question would be, are passengers in a vehicle required to carry ID’s? Can we be detained
for not having ID’s?

In this case the officers’ hunches were correct, and I would like to think they would follow up on
them, using the information obtained legally from the van driver. But if I understand the story
correctly, the citizenship status of the passengers was not known during the traffic stop, which is
exactly the same situation I’ve been in every time I’ve been pulled over: citizenship unknown.
Would it have been acceptable for the police to have detained me? Ask yourself these things!

This is as much as admitting that the lawsuit is intended to intimidate police who have the audacity to perform their duties concientiously.

Why should we be embarrassed? Have you been paying attention to the decisions coming out of our courts lately? The ACLU? Doesn’t exactly shine a favorable light on the profession.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:
Once again the ACLU aim fire at law enforcement to defend imaginary rights of illegal immigrants furthering the decay of our national soverignty.
Steven Brown, director of the Rhode Island affiliate, yesterday noted the …