Arizona Immigration law SB1070

Arizona Immigration law SB1070

Very recently, the state of Arizona passed a bill (now law) that is by far the most strong immigration law the US has ever seen.
Many, like myself, see this as John McCain's last ditch attempt to hold onto his long-held Senate seat. Others disagree.
Irregardless, it has been the subject of much controversy here of late and has the Hispanic/Latino population quite riled up.


From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

"Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it. Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.” The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status. The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally.

Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.” As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.” The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August. Court challenges were expected immediately.

Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”

While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.
Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.

President George W. Bush had attempted comprehensive reform but failed when his own party split over the issue. Once again, Republicans facing primary challenges from the right, including Ms. Brewer and Senator John McCain, have come under tremendous pressure to support the Arizona law, known as SB 1070. Mr. McCain, locked in a primary with a challenger campaigning on immigration, only came out in support of the law hours before the State Senate passed it Monday afternoon. Governor Brewer, even after the Senate passed the bill, had been silent on whether she would sign it. Though she was widely expected to, given her primary challenge, she refused to state her position even at a dinner on Thursday for a Hispanic social service organization, Chicanos Por La Causa, where several audience members called out “Veto!”
Among other things, the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vetoed similar legislation repeatedly as a Democratic governor of the state before being appointed Homeland Security secretary by Mr. Obama.

The law opens a deep fissure in Arizona, with a majority of the thousands of callers to the governor’s office urging her to reject it.
In the days leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat, called for a convention boycott of his state. The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues, has several provisions. It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced. States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007, the last time a federal effort to reform immigration law collapsed. Last year, there were a record number of laws enacted (222) and resolutions (131) in 48 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The prospect of plunging into a national immigration debate is being increasingly talked about on Capitol Hill, spurred in part by recent statements by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader, that he intends to bring legislation to the Senate floor after Memorial Day. But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could also energize conservative voters. It could also take time from other Democratic priorities, including an energy measure that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has described as her flagship issue. Mr. Reid declined Thursday to say that immigration would take precedence over an energy measure. But he called it an imperative: “The system is broken,” he said. Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, have said that the House would be willing to take up immigration policy only if the Senate produces a bill first.

The number of illegals in the state (and country) is staggering. Something needs to be done, preferably at the national level. Oddly, it's a national problem that is exacerbated in some areas by the number of voting Hispanic Americans.

More broadly, the problems are not unique to the U.S. There are millions of undocumented aliens across Europe. Germany alone has a huge problem, and some recent estimates put the number up to a million in the UK. It ain't only Arizona that has a problem.

It is interesting that Obama is not in favour but it goes ahead. Say for example when we had Phoney Tony in power, he would make decisions and members of his own cabinet were not even properly informed!! Quite a contrast.
We don't talk about immigration in the UK. Its a taboo subject. It would be quite amusing however if the powers that be here, introduced a 'prove who you are system'. I'm saying no more.

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

We don't talk about immigration in the UK. Its a taboo subject. It would be quite amusing however if the powers that be here, introduced a 'prove who you are system'. I'm saying no more.

Say more.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Very recently, the state of Arizona passed a bill (now law) that is by far the most strong immigration law the US has ever seen.

It's not an immigration law though, per se. That can be set only at Federal level. It's more about enforecement of current immigration law. And the crux of the matter, from what I can read into it, is the phrase 'reasonable suspicion'. Which the anti SB1070's are saying is tantamount to giving the police a free hand to engage in racial profiling. 'Reasonable suspicion' is a vague term, used throughout the world by law enforcement agencies and however lawyers try to define it, it does give the police something of a free hand.

I don't think illegal immigrants have any right to complain about it. That's the life of being an illegal immigrant. It does seem a silly law to me (although not as silly as some have made out), but the only ones who'll suffer unjustly are Americans. The brown looking ones.

It's ironic, in some ways, that Arizona have passed such a bill. Given that they in particular have industries which are so dependent on (often seasonal) immigrant labour.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

The number of illegals in the state (and country) is staggering. Something needs to be done, preferably at the national level. Oddly, it's a national problem that is exacerbated in some areas by the number of voting Hispanic Americans.

You're not wrong, but can you imagine of they rounded up all the illegals and sent them south of the border to a country with only one growth industry, with only one job available to them. A job which, ironically enough, they have just the right sort of experience for....

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

We don't talk about immigration in the UK. Its a taboo subject.

I love the way people keep saying that, despite the fact it is one of the most talked about political issues around!

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

It would be quite amusing however if the powers that be here, introduced a 'prove who you are system'. I'm saying no more.

They are trying. It's called the ID card. In favour?

In favour?

Pass. No. Can I phone a friend?

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

Pass. No. Can I phone a friend?

Certainly. We're putting a call thru now to Troy's friend, Gupta Rafsanjani in Bombay.....oh wait. That's just the call centre....

I heard an interesting statistic about that law on the news. 70 were in favor of the law, but more then half thought it was unconstitutional.

It's a lie that the Federal Government is not enforcing immigration laws. For example, taking a bus from Mexico City to Pensacola Florida, the buses were stopped multiple times within the US by Federal law enforcement demanding to see everyone's identification.

Originally posted by garydenness:

It's more about enforecement of current immigration law.

and that bit from Dawg's post from the governor saying that federal government refuses to fix the problem: What else can really be done, politically? From the example above learned through my own experience, law enforcement is almost over-zealous as it is. Maybe use the military to patrol the border more..oh wait those are tied in in the endless War in Error; I mean War on Terror. Hire more border guards - can't do that either because of the deficit.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

That's reason enough for the governor to have vetoed the law. Now every Right-wing xenophobe in the state will start suing.

Had same problem in 50's as I remember. Simple fix work visa's or some thing like that.problem went from went from something like 30,000 a mo, to 1000. Guess what Labor unions made a stink. And lookie now.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Simple fix work visa's or some thing like tha

Yeah. My guess is that a whole of them come in, work for a season and return to Mexico. Half a million illegal immigrants from Mexico to the US every year and staying in the US would depopulate Mexico quickly, would it not?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

... which would force anyone else any cop might think is an immigrant ( legal or not ) to carry ID at all times. Now where's the outcry from the republicans?

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

... which would force anyone else any cop might think is an immigrant ( legal or not ) to carry ID at all times. Now where's the outcry from the republicans?

freaking lawyers are all republicans, except for the Marxist crap heads. . either way they win.

Originally posted by garydenness:

You're not wrong, but can you imagine of they rounded up all the illegals and sent them south of the border to a country with only one growth industry, with only one job available to them.

For starters, I can't imagine that. It's easier to imagine Angelina Jolie showing up on my doorstep tomorrow.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

For starters, I can't imagine that.

No. It was hypothetical, of course...

Originally posted by Jaybro:

It's easier to imagine Angelina Jolie showing up on my doorstep tomorrow.

And far more pleasant too. But why limit yourself. You're only an electron or two away from imagining Angelina Jolie showing up on your doorstep handcuffed to Salma...

Originally posted by garydenness:

And far more pleasant too. But why limit yourself. You're only an electron or two away from imagining Angelina Jolie showing up on your doorstep handcuffed to Salma...

Brave imagination, sir! I do suffer a bit from atrial fibrillations, though.

Originally posted by garydenness:

It's not an immigration law though, per se. That can be set only at Federal level. It's more about enforecement of current immigration law.

True, but I reckon that this will wind up in the Supreme Court along with the new health care law.
The 10th Amendment has become quite popular these days seemingly.
(Odd how it has been lying dormant for 145 years and all of a sudden *boom* in 2010 it's popular once again. )

Originally posted by garydenness:

And the crux of the matter, from what I can read into it, is the phrase 'reasonable suspicion'.

That's exactly right. That is the cause of all the controversy. I wonder what the hell Arizona lawmakers were smoking when they put that in the new "law"? (I just can't picture John McCain smoking a blunt. )

Originally posted by garydenness:

It's ironic, in some ways, that Arizona have passed such a bill. Given that they in particular have industries which are so dependent on (often seasonal) immigrant labour.

Indeed it is. As I referenced to in the OP, I think it is more of a power play on the Repubs part. They will do anything and everything to hold onto/gain seats these days. From what I can tell, a lot of citizens from Arizona are tired of Methusala McCain's talk that has no walk.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now every Right-wing xenophobe in the state will start suing.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Now where's the outcry from the republicans?

I'm more surprised that the Teabaggers haven't been all over this one like flies on crap.

Originally posted by garydenness:

It's not an immigration law though, per se. That can be set only at Federal level. It's more about enforecement of current immigration law.

True, but I reckon that this will wind up in the Supreme Court along with the new health care law.
The 10th Amendment has become quite popular these days seemingly.
(Odd how it has been lying dormant for 145 years and all of a sudden *boom* in 2010 it's popular once again. )

Originally posted by garydenness:

And the crux of the matter, from what I can read into it, is the phrase 'reasonable suspicion'.

That's exactly right. That is the cause of all the controversy. I wonder what the hell Arizona lawmakers were smoking when they put that in the new "law"? (I just can't picture John McCain smoking a blunt. )

Originally posted by garydenness:

It's ironic, in some ways, that Arizona have passed such a bill. Given that they in particular have industries which are so dependent on (often seasonal) immigrant labour.

Indeed it is. As I referenced to in the OP, I think it is more of a power play on the Repubs part. They will do anything and everything to hold onto/gain seats these days. From what I can tell, a lot of citizens from Arizona are tired of Methusala McCain's talk that has no walk.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now every Right-wing xenophobe in the state will start suing.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Now where's the outcry from the republicans?

I'm more surprised that the Teabaggers haven't been all over this one like flies on crap.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

That's exactly right. That is the cause of all the controversy. I wonder what the hell Arizona lawmakers were smoking when they put that in the new "law"? (I just can't picture John McCain smoking a blunt. )

Dutch law sadly contains something similar. No detaining is involved, though. After first requiring IDs (ridiculous imo) in '05, two years later they concluded police were issuing far too many false fines. There's a €25 fine if you don't have ID on you, but just a library card or something will do. It doesn't necessarily need to be an official one in order not to be fined.

They concluded that the law hadn't been abused to single out foreign-looking people, but the precedent is there...

Originally posted by Frenzie:

foreign-looking people

Just get the old library card. heheheheh

Don't fool with the Dutch, Beligiminds or what ever.

Democrat: Arizona law like 'Nazi Germany’

Arizona illegal immigrant law is a Nazi measure says Catholic Archbishop Mahony

(Newsweek) Arizona or Nazi Germany?

Sharpton, other activists compare Arizona immigration law to apartheid, Nazi Germany and Jim Crow

Roger Ebert Compares Arizona Immigration Bill To Nazi Germany

NYT Former Reporter Greenhouse Fires on Arizona's 'Police State,' Makes Nazi Comparison
http://minx.cc/?post=301007
.........................................
Virtually everybody is into the Nazi attribution.

For those of you who were wondering...

http://teapartypatriots.org/

Just scan down the page a bit.

Well, then they shouldn't have a problem with Real ID. Oh, wait, that would be for white people too

Some will find something of interest at the following:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/ruaKeIMmBiV4

Oddly, Social Security didn't come down as socialist as I would have suspected. I think that the whole Tea Bag issue is too easy to over-simplify.

I live on a northern US border, and we even have Mexicans trying to sneak across via Canada. I know 4 people from my area that moved to or still reside in Arizona, I was surprised by storied of being unable to get simple service (Gas station, Grocery, Hotel, etc.) without speaking Spanish. And you think " I'll just go to another store where the help speaks English.", but no!, English is absent also. Blame goes full circle in this situation (It usually does). But what is beyond me is, if people want to come, why no mass formal system i.e. Ellis Island to deal with this. Immigrants don't have to be a financial detriment, they can be an asset. I'm a big supporter of statehood over federal (mostly), so despite my mainly "open" immigration beliefs, I'm with AZ on this, they can make their own state laws as they see fit, 51 different states if you don't like Arizona.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

For those of you who were wondering...

Oh wow..I am so shocked.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

For those of you who were wondering...

Oh wow..I am so shocked.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

... which would force anyone else any cop might think is an immigrant ( legal or not ) to carry ID at all times. Now where's the outcry from the republicans?

I carry my driver's license pretty much all the time. And have had to show it pretty frequently. No big deal.

It's required by law and has been on the federal books for 70 years that any immigrant must carry their papers to prove their right just as it is for a citizen to. So If ü think this is just a new way to screw with people think again. I have been in Pheniox enough to know of the constant crime. If ü think not just take ür young daughter there and leave her in the Mall for awhile chances are good she'll be a sex slave by that night.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I heard an interesting statistic about that law on the news. 70 were in favor of the law, but more then half thought it was unconstitutional.

That means 70% agree with the law but 50% know it's going to be overturned by some court somewhere. I'm for "border security", but rounding up 20 million people is just not humane. Fix the border, which isn't "fixed", first...and then provide a path to citizenship for those already here.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Hire more border guards - can't do that either because of the deficit.

OK, about one-third of the "stimulus" has been spent. How many border guards could be hired for $400 billion? Maybe we could put "green jobs creation" harnessing the awesome power of frog burps and cow farts on hold for a while.

There ya go obuma hire border patrol. Fix ür jobless economics plan in the same breath. Not going to happen he wants an immigrant influx to devastate the economy its all the new world order plan just google trilateral commission agenda. Ü'll sh`t when ü see how close we all are to being ruled.

Paul Theroux:

These people who are protesting being asked for identification by Arizona cops—have they been anywhere lately, like out of the country? Like Mexico, or Canada, or India, or Italy, or Tanzania, or Singapore, or Britain—places where people in uniforms have routinely demanded my papers? Chicago White Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen is offended (“as a Latin American”) by the Arizona law and recently claimed that all illegal immigrants are “workaholics.” Has he been back to the land of his birth lately, Venezuela, and expected not to be asked for his papers? Ozzie, tell the police in Ocumare del Tuy, “I’m a Latin American,” and see if that will end the interrogation. And spare a thought for the policeman two days ago who was gunned down in the desert by a workaholic drug dealer. ...

As for this Arizona law (which is understandable until the federal government takes a stand), I am delighted to be reassured that there will be no racial profiling. The illegals in Arizona are not just Hispanics. Those of you who have read Dark Star Safari, my book about traveling through Africa, might remember how, in the Sudan, I met a Sudanese man (on vacation in Khartoum from New York) who explained very carefully how he had entered the United States illegally, the best way: Go to Mexico, pay someone some money, and then hide in a fish truck or a vegetable van and hop the border. Sudanese, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis, Brazilians. Illegal aliens come from all over the world to converge on the Arizona, California, and New Mexico borders. The Hispanics are right to be a little indignant, but just a little. It is much easier to sneak into the U.S. than to apply for a residence permit.

Does this mean Arizonans will have to learn to do their own housework and gardening?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Democrat: Arizona law like 'Nazi Germany’

Arizona illegal immigrant law is a Nazi measure says Catholic Archbishop Mahony

(Newsweek) Arizona or Nazi Germany?

Sharpton, other activists compare Arizona immigration law to apartheid, Nazi Germany and Jim Crow

Roger Ebert Compares Arizona Immigration Bill To Nazi Germany

NYT Former Reporter Greenhouse Fires on Arizona's 'Police State,' Makes Nazi Comparison

http://minx.cc/?post=301007

.........................................

Virtually everybody is into the Nazi attribution.

Well, I don't know about America, but except for post-2005 the only time in Dutch history that we've had such forced ID carrying was under Nazi occupation. As far as I'm concerned comparisons to the occupation are therefore quite warranted.

Originally posted by Paul Theroux:

These people who are protesting being asked for identification by Arizona cops—have they been anywhere lately, like out of the country? Like Mexico, or Canada, or India, or Italy, or Tanzania, or Singapore, or Britain—places where people in uniforms have routinely demanded my papers?

"If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?" Proper motivation should show how it actually helps reduce crime in any of those countries, and such a thing has never been proven as far as I know. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Has he been back to the land of his birth lately, Venezuela, and expected not to be asked for his papers?

Yes, that's what the US needs. To be more like Venezuela.

The illegals in Arizona are not just Hispanics... Sudanese, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis, Brazilians.

Not just Hispanics, just everyone who isn't white. What a lovely list, devoid of any racial profiling.

Arizona may not be, but the US is a sovereign country and can decide on most any migration laws it pleases. That said, the popularity of a law, the intentions, and its consequences are not closely related. In particular these laws affect natives and visitors, legal or illegal, in ways that may not be expected.

This is from California, not Arizona, but <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/04/welcome-home.html">this story</a> tells the experience of one New Zealand woman in the USA.

After a few hours of waiting, we were divided into groups of four, handcuffed to each other, and taken off to find beds for the night in local jails. The problem was, none of the jails would take anybody with health problems, since they didn't have medical staff on site. So they refused me because I'd had an asthma attack five years ago. Never mind that I hadn't had one since; the mere fact that I had had one at all was enough for them to refuse me. So I went back to Tank 6.

She told me that she'd been living (legally - she'd had a green card) in the US for 31 years. Her children were American, her grandchildren were American. She was a mechanic. She'd been fixing her car, and needed water for her radiator. So she walked across somebody's front lawn to get to a tap. And the people who owned the lawn had charged her with trespassing. So the authorities had canceled her green card and were deporting her back to Mexico City.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

OK, about one-third of the "stimulus" has been spent. How many border guards could be hired for $400 billion? Maybe we could put "green jobs creation" harnessing the awesome power of frog burps and cow farts on hold for a while.

Hire undocumented aliens. They're cheaper and speak the language.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

As far as I'm concerned comparisons to the occupation are therefore quite warranted.

Me thinks you have the cart pulling the horse.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Me thinks you have the cart pulling the horse.

I assume you mean I haven't properly defended my argument, and am merely drawing a parallel between two completely different situations, so I will expand a bit. The real target of such laws is illegal foreigners, similar to the story jax linked to, except looking Moroccan is more likely to get you in trouble than looking Mexican. While a fine has been the mostly imposed punishment (read: easy money for authorities), there are known and increasing instances of people protesting these ID laws ending up in foreigner detention centers. This violates the innocence principle (innocent until proven guilty, I realize this isn't really proper English but I'm not sure how else to express this) and the right to remain silent. The main difference with the German occupation is one of gradation. Rather than forcing 16-50 year olds to work in Germany and shipping Jews off to concentration camps we're merely locking up normal citizens for no good reason and deporting foreigners to whatever hellhole they fled.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

we're merely locking up normal citizens for no good reason

Well I guess we are not on same page. as I don't know who "we" is and to equate immigration law in Arizona from a people with no place to turn with the Nazi's is ridiculous, if not pretty fxxing stupid. I just don't know how else to say it. That page is in Dutch? so I guess, on second thought, "we" is you..sorry if that is the case.

Methinks you've lost the context of what you quoted me about in the first place. That said, how does this sound any different?

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Methinks you've lost the context of what you quoted me about in the first place. That said, how does this sound any different?

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

yea , probably my fault. misinterpretation of "Well, I don't know about America, but except for post-2005 the only time in Dutch history that we've had such forced ID carrying was under Nazi occupation. As far as I'm concerned comparisons to the occupation are therefore quite warranted. "

yea , probably my fault. Misinterpretation of "Well, I don't know about America, but except for post-2005 the only time in Dutch history that we've had such forced ID carrying was under Nazi occupation. As far as I'm concerned comparisons to the occupation are therefore quite warranted. "

Cheers.

Whatever the merits of Arizona's new law, it is doomed. It has unleashed a shit-storm so wide and deep that the state will never be able to stick with it. One of the odder outcomes is a request from a NY congressman to take the 2011 All Star baseball game away from Phoenix. While that's not likely to happen, it suggests the wealth of problems that the law will cause the state. Arizonans need some sort of redress from the burdens caused by illegal immigration, but this ain't it.

My crystal ball is down for repairs, so I can't foresee the inevitable outcome, but Arizona will figure out some way to wriggle free from it's decision.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

One of the odder outcomes is a request from a NY congressman to take the 2011 All Star baseball game away from Phoenix.

Well that proves it They,Arizona, are well within their rights.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Well that proves it They,Arizona, are well within their rights.

That remains to be seen. But if it holds, Michigan will have a legal recourse to keeping those damned Canadians out of the state.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Yes, that's what the US needs. To be more like Venezuela.

That's what Michael Moore and Sean Penn say anyway. But it isn't just about Venezuela. "Show me your papers" is apparently a pretty common phrase elsewhere. I've experienced it overseas.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Not just Hispanics, just everyone who isn't white. What a lovely list, devoid of any racial profiling.

So would you feel better if they caught a few more Bulgarians or Poles crossing into Arizona? Maybe the SW states could start advertising for more white illegals to cross over their borders.

I am for open borders we just need to apprehend or shoot a few deserving people.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

"Show me your papers" is apparently a pretty common phrase elsewhere. I've experienced it overseas.

I never have, but I've heard stories about the former DDR...

Originally posted by fanfaron:

So would you feel better if they caught a few more Bulgarians or Poles crossing into Arizona? Maybe the SW states could start advertising for more white illegals to cross over their borders.

No, but it was probably a red herring put there on purpose anyway.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

"Show me your papers" is apparently a pretty common phrase elsewhere. I've experienced it overseas.

I never have, but I've heard stories about the former DDR...

I have, in Japan and South Korea. Damn fascists, right?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

So would you feel better if they caught a few more Bulgarians or Poles crossing into Arizona? Maybe the SW states could start advertising for more white illegals to cross over their borders.

No, but it was probably a red herring put there on purpose anyway.

Sorry it couldn't have been a white herring, then.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I have, in Japan and South Korea. Damn fascists, right?

Maybe, maybe not. Mostly depends on what they do if you fail to present some, I would think.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I have, in Japan and South Korea. Damn fascists, right?

Maybe, maybe not. Mostly depends on what they do if you fail to present some, I would think.

Anything less than citizenship or at least permanent resident alien status on the spot would be obvious racism.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Anything less than citizenship or at least permanent resident alien status on the spot would be obvious racism.

dot dot dot

Okay, this is just getting silly. Fanfaron, you're just trolling us all, right? Please, please say "yes".

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Anything less than citizenship or at least permanent resident alien status on the spot would be obvious racism.

dot dot dot

Okay, this is just getting silly. Fanfaron, you're just trolling us all, right? Please, please say "yes".

Trolling? I'm just following the logic, dude. Wouldn't it be "racism" or "fascism", and if not why not? I am TIRED of talking points that are just spewed without any real thought going into them.

The Immigration Debate Cries Out for Honesty.

What is the immigration debate in need of most?

It depends on whom you ask. Conservatives say it requires more toughness, a willingness to seal the border and round up illegal immigrants. Liberals say it could use more compassion, an understanding that many of those who come to the United States illegally do so for a better life just like earlier waves of immigrants.

They’re both wrong. What the immigration debate needs most isn’t toughness or compassion. It’s honesty. Whether it is to make their camp look better or to make it easier to discredit their opponents, people on both sides of this argument sure do spend a lot of time and energy denying the obvious.........

Source

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The Immigration Debate Cries Out for Honesty.

...What the immigration debate needs most isn’t toughness or compassion. It’s honesty.

DAMN right. We could've used some of that in the health care "debate" as well. And in the debate on the economy. And in the debate on terrorism. And in the debate on the economic meltdown. Instead what we get is talking points recited ad nauseam, complete with the inevitable Nazi or Stalin imagery, or shrieks of "RACISSSSTS!!!!!!!".

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Trolling? I'm just following the logic, dude. Wouldn't it be "racism" or "fascism", and if not why not? I am TIRED of talking points that are just spewed without any real thought going into them.

The logic is very simple, but you seem to be missing it completely. Your argument of "other countries do it too" is nonsense, because it presupposes what you're arguing in the first place. Namely that there are good reasons to have such a law, because otherwise other countries wouldn't have it, would they? And that's where you're wrong.

As I said, something very similar happened in the Netherlands in 2005. The arguments were of the same caliber as yours. Belgium, Germany, and many other countries already do it, so we're sort of the outsiders. I don't believe Japan and South-Korea were mentioned, but what other countries do is entirely besides the point. The point is does it actually have the intended effect? There's also the privacy issue on the background, but at least over here that's already been considered not to matter enough in the face of terrorism and the like, and you clearly don't consider it of significance either.

The simple answer regarding the intended effect is no, it does not. Here's the long answer, in Dutch. The minister of internal affairs claimed it helps to "improve safety", but no such effect is mentioned in the report. All that happened is that the state has a slightly higher income from fines given to citizens. And that's ignoring the central database of fingerprints and all that nonsense. Maybe things are different in the US, but we live in a state of law, where a central principle is that the privacy shouldn't be invaded unless there's a reasonable suspicion. Sticking fingerprints in a central database isn't exactly abiding to that principle.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

DAMN right. We could've used some of that in the health care "debate" as well. And in the debate on the economy. And in the debate on terrorism. And in the debate on the economic meltdown. Instead what we get is talking points recited ad nauseam, complete with the inevitable Nazi or Stalin imagery, or shrieks of "RACISSSSTS!!!!!!!".

Right. Those first two paragraphs seem mostly like satire. Heck, the third paragraph does too.

On the right, that means accepting some hard truths: that racism and ethnocentrism are part of this discussion and they have been since the first immigrants arrived in the 18th century;

Excuse me while I bask in the honesty.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

it will take more than a sign for her to get lucky.

Originally posted by Denny77:

I am for open borders we just need to apprehend or shoot a few deserving people.

Up against the wall, Denny77.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

So would you feel better if they caught a few more Bulgarians or Poles crossing into Arizona?

Is this about people "crossing into Arizona"? If so, close the border to foreign workers. Problem mitigated.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Is this about people "crossing into Arizona"? If so, close the border to foreign workers. Problem mitigated.

I've never crossed into Arizona.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I've never crossed into Arizona.

Well, keep it that way!

Sigh.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Well, keep it that way!



Sigh.

I believe I'm fine by that guy's standards. I speak English, and I can also do the stereotypical pirate speech. Arr, matey!!!

Besides, we Dutch people pride ourselves on kicking out the Spanish armies. That should be close to his heart.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Besides, we Dutch people pride ourselves on kicking out the Spanish armies

on occasion you might have someone else do it for you...

Originally posted by Denny77:

on occasion you might have someone else do it for you...

The Dutch army at least partially consisted of German mercenaries.

So did the American revolutionary army, for that matter. lol

Originally posted by Denny77:

on occasion you might have someone else do it for you...

The Dutch army at least partially consisted of German mercenaries.

So did the American revolutionary army, for that matter. lol

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I've never crossed into Arizona.

Well, keep it that way!

Sigh.

Well, he can vote for Tim James running for governor in Alabama with the campaign promise that he'll make sure the driver's license test is only given in English. Never mind the fact that people that would vote for candidates like James barely speak English themselves....

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Trolling? I'm just following the logic, dude. Wouldn't it be "racism" or "fascism", and if not why not? I am TIRED of talking points that are just spewed without any real thought going into them.

The logic is very simple, but you seem to be missing it completely. Your argument of "other countries do it too" is nonsense, because it presupposes what you're arguing in the first place. Namely that there are good reasons to have such a law, because otherwise other countries wouldn't have it, would they? And that's where you're wrong.

There should be no immigration law at all, only open borders. It took you that long and that many words to come up with that? Now, if you'll explain what entity you have to replace the nation state, I'd love to hear it. And if I misunderstand and you DO think there should be immigration law, I'd also love to hear how you propose to enforce it.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The Dutch army at least partially consisted of German mercenaries. P:

So did the American revolutionary army, for that matter.

No, that would be the British. They employed Hessian troops.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Is this about people "crossing into Arizona"?

So I take it.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

There should be no immigration law at all, only open borders. It took you that long and that many words to come up with that?

I don't think Frenchie agrees with that straw man, but increasingly I think that I do. The reason is similar. Immigrants are incredibly resourceful. It is a terrible shame to let it go to waste.

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

There should be no immigration law at all, only open borders. It took you that long and that many words to come up with that?

I don't think Frenchie agrees with that straw man, but increasingly I think that I do. The reason is similar. Immigrants are incredibly resourceful. It is a terrible shame to let it go to waste.

I would like to go back to that but the current situation shows us just how far civilisation has digressed....at least in this corner of the world. Everybody has to take the shortcut.

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

There should be no immigration law at all, only open borders. It took you that long and that many words to come up with that?

I don't think Frenchie agrees with that straw man,

I don't see how it's a straw man in the absence of any clearly stated alternative...which is why I also included the following:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

And if I misunderstand and you DO think there should be immigration law, I'd also love to hear how you propose to enforce it.

Originally posted by jax:

but increasingly I think that I do. The reason is similar. Immigrants are incredibly resourceful. It is a terrible shame to let it go to waste.

So what do you propose to put in place of the nation-state as we now know it? I'm for immigration too, but I don't like the idea of anarchy either.

Unfettered access to cross ANY & ALL the US borders (Canada, Mexico, Atlantic, Pacific, & Gulf) is not an entitlement, it's a privilege bestowed upon all 'legal' visitors via the generosity of the American peoples through their government. All peoples are welcome to 'legally' visit or stay in the US for a prescribed time period & for specific reasons, provided they have documentation proving that they wish to enter legally & have been given permission to do so by the US Department of Immigration. If a 'legal' alien/migrant wishes to remain a 'guest' resident of the USA he or she MUST apply through the proper channels, & follow the prescribed procedures.

Those that don't want to, or refuse to follow the proper 'legal' procedures, MUST be refused entry--end of story--period. Anyone that circumvents the proper procedures must be made to pay whatever penalties prescribed by law--including imprisonment at hard labor & or deportation--willing or not. They are COMPLETELY UNWELCOME.

The problem to date, including the one being debated here, has been exacerbated by the outright negligence of the Federal Government to properly enforce the EXISTING laws on the books in regards to immigration--ALL immigration. They have failed in their obligation as prescribed by law--existing law--and must be held accountable. They must be forced to enforce those laws, pure & simple.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

There should be no immigration law at all, only open borders. It took you that long and that many words to come up with that? Now, if you'll explain what entity you have to replace the nation state, I'd love to hear it. And if I misunderstand and you DO think there should be immigration law, I'd also love to hear how you propose to enforce it.

I'm undecided on that, though I do think the claims that immigrants cost money can be largely explained by them not being allowed to actually work legally for about a year and being forced to take all kinds of classes that often aren't even proper for them (too hard, too easy, too irrelevant...). I think you can barely blame immigrants for costing money if the reason they cost so much money is because of all the costly procedures you put in place. It's all so hard, complicated, and time consuming that I don't understand how people can claim it's too easy for immigrants to move into the country and that it should be made harder. I think all that does is push supply and demand onto the black market, which is what we want to avoid in the first place, isn't it? Back in '96 illegals in Amsterdam were supposed to work on a maximum of 30,000 full time jobs, but in '01 that had risen to at least 35,000 up to about 50,000. Guess which types of laws got stricter... Unlike the theory that stricter immigration laws means less immigration, all you get is less legal immigrants and more illegal immigrants. But I'm not quite sure how you got any of that from what I said since I was commenting on this new law proposal, not what my views on immigration are.

I'm talking about the effects of laws such as this Arizona Immigration law SB1070. It does not help to mitigate crime, terrorism or even illegal immigrants. Sure, there may be an unconstitutional police raid on a bar where some illegals are known to hang out now and then, but I rather doubt that has much of an effect other than making illegals either avoid bars or perhaps utilize illegal bars (that'd probably be worse...). The matter of fact is that most illegal immigrants probably don't look white, so in the end the only way to possibly make it work is to harass those who don't look Caucasian. It might have the intended effect of deporting more illegal immigrants (at least it sounds more likely to me that you could achieve that than mitigate crime or terrorism), but only at the cost of harassing all somewhat exotic looking people.

In a sense the way it's implemented in the Netherlands is the only fair way, because then at least all citizens are harassed, so to speak. But that doesn't really change the problem of who police decides to check out and why; it just makes it less obvious. Strangely enough this is one of the few issues where I align 100% with the right-wing Christian parties, and equally strange it's probably the very same type of right-wing Christians who are behind this law in Arizona.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

And if I misunderstand and you DO think there should be immigration law, I'd also love to hear how you propose to enforce it.

Well, despite what I said about the effectiveness of Dutch/Belgian/German/etc. law regarding identification, people aren't really dehumanized nearly as much here (beyond the obvious extent of locking them up). All of that hasn't changed too much since before the introduction of the identification duty. Police and/or governmental organizations regarding safety and social laws can always do surprise inspections of businesses regarding social regulations which, perhaps as a side-effect, was and still is how most illegals are caught.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The Dutch army at least partially consisted of German mercenaries. P:

So did the American revolutionary army, for that matter.

No, that would be the British. They employed Hessian troops.

Both did. The American revolutionary war was (to some extent) Germans fighting Germans. I think it's sort of amusing.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

So what do you propose to put in place of the nation-state as we now know it? I'm for immigration too, but I don't like the idea of anarchy either.

I'm not sure, though I suppose we could start by having more trans-Atlantic, free movement of people and goods. You don't need to be a part of the EU for that: just look at countries like Norway and Switzerland.

Frenzie has a green card.. Frenzie has a green card.. Frenzie has a green card.. Frenzie has a green card..

I have a Belgian ID, which is valid throughout the entire EU, and a Dutch passport & driver's license (which is very similar to a European ID, although not officially recognized everywhere). I couldn't get a green card even if I wanted to, at least as long as we opt not to live in the US.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I'm talking about the effects of laws such as this Arizona Immigration law SB1070. It does not help to mitigate crime, terrorism or even illegal immigrants.

For one thing, I'm not a fan of this particular law and approach, but it's a little too early to pass judgement on its effectiveness since it doesn't go into effect until August. For another, I'd like to see some empirical data showing that enforcement of stringent immigration policies have the unintended effects you claim.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Guess which types of laws got stricter...

Laws getting stricter and laws being more stringently enforced are different things. You see, Arizona's proposing to do the latter.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Both did.

Um, not really.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

For one thing, I'm not a fan of this particular law and approach, but it's a little too early to pass judgement on its effectiveness since it doesn't go into effect until August. For another, I'd like to see some empirical data showing that enforcement of stringent immigration policies have the unintended effects you claim.

As I said, I'm talking about my take on similar laws around here. It was introduced under the same rhetoric, now it's here to stay although no advantages have been proven in the past five years.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Laws getting stricter and laws being more stringently enforced are different things. You see, Arizona's proposing to do the latter.

By regulation which doesn't just have a large potential for abuse (like the Dutch laws) by targeting colored people, but has it principally built-in.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Both did.

Um, not really.

There several thousand Germans fighting for the French and there were tons of German settlers fighting directly as Americans. I'm not saying it was like some kind of German civil war.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Laws getting stricter and laws being more stringently enforced are different things. You see, Arizona's proposing to do the latter.

By regulation which doesn't just have a large potential for abuse (like the Dutch laws) by targeting colored people, but has it principally built-in.

I'm not at all for targeting people of color, but if most illegal immigrants are people of color then they will be targeted most. Although I think that it's safe to say (without any evidence, just a hunch) that people wouldn't be so irate over Irish immigrants, for example. But in Arizona and in other SW states, most illegal immigrants are Latin American.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

There several thousand Germans fighting for the French and there were tons of German settlers fighting directly as Americans. I'm not saying it was like some kind of German civil war.

It was a petty quibble on my part. I apologize.

That the purpose of the law is, implicitly, to harass legal immigrants by targeting people who vaguely look Mexican, in the hopes that maybe some might be illegal, and challenging them to prove on the spot that they're legally citizens (when such identification is not required by law) is unjust.
Do you commonly carry that sort of ID? I know I don't, and attempts to pass laws requiring ID carrying have been met with stern resistance here.

If they were serious about tackling immigration they would focus their efforts on arresting and prosecuting those who employ them, and those who smuggle them into the country, while simultaneously making it easier for prospective immigrants to enter legally as long as they can find work.

I support the State of Arizona 100 %.....Uncle Sugar has been sitting on his a$$ for years doing nothing about ILLEGAL immigration....legal immigration is fine by me, but illegal is, well, illegal. And that goes for ALL illegals, no matter their skin color, religion or country of origin.

I agree with the law in that it will cause illegals to think twice about illegally settling or working illegally in Arizona, thus cutting down on illegal & costly activity in the state of Arizona.

Will it stop all activity by illegals there?

Nope, but it will make inroads to that end.

What would I want changed in the law? I would want it completely tied to suspected illegal activity, & not to a wild hunch about a brown fella simply walking down the street being a wetback.

Scenario #1....Three guys are suspected of robbing a 7-11. Hands down they were caught in the act. While they are handcuffed against the wall with their legs spread, they are asked for papers that in some way proves they are not illegal, because when being questioned they refused, or didn't know how, to communicate in English--solimente espanol. The cops would investigate these three based on this & if after thorough investigation they were found to be illegal, off to jail for further questioning related to the crime they were suspected of committing, & on top of that an INS determination---which was not usually done before this law.

After investigation they were found not to be the robbers, but all three were found to be in the USA illegally, & were tossed out on their toco's by the INS.

Great job by the men in blue (I think their uniform is blue), & only made possible by this new law.

Scenario #2....Now these same cops listen to three similar guys chattin' in a cafe. They suspect they might be illegals. Well, if they haven't broken any laws & aren't suspected of the same, they should be allowed to continue without inquisition. The cops should wait until one crosses the street in the middle of the block (Jay Walking), or spits on the sidewalk, & only then should they be questioned for their papers!

Great job by the men in blue (I think their uniform is blue), & should only be made possible by this new law.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I'm not at all for targeting people of color, but if most illegal immigrants are people of color then they will be targeted most. Although I think that it's safe to say (without any evidence, just a hunch) that people wouldn't be so irate over Irish immigrants, for example. But in Arizona and in other SW states, most illegal immigrants are Latin American.

I agree with Redem.

Originally posted by Redem:

If they were serious about tackling immigration they would focus their efforts on arresting and prosecuting those who employ them, and those who smuggle them into the country, while simultaneously making it easier for prospective immigrants to enter legally as long as they can find work.

Note that I already said essentially the same thing earlier.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Police and/or governmental organizations regarding safety and social laws can always do surprise inspections of businesses regarding social regulations which, perhaps as a side-effect, was and still is how most illegals are caught.

Of course aside from catching illegals, it results in fines or possibly worse for the business owners, hopefully making the employment of illegals less attractive.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

It was a petty quibble on my part. I apologize.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

What would I want changed in the law? I would want it completely tied to suspected illegal activity, & not to a wild hunch about a brown fella simply walking down the street being a wetback.

I agree, though I would imagine that any police officer worth their salt should be able to work with that to the very same result. But still, then we'd be talking about potential for abuse rather than the abuse being an essential part, which is already a lot better.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Well, he can vote for Tim James running for governor in Alabama with the campaign promise that he'll make sure the driver's license test is only given in English. Never mind the fact that people that would vote for candidates like James barely speak English themselves....

They speak fine English, if not the English of the more highly educated. "Standard English" is a cudgel.
.........................................

Despite expectations that the 1996 welfare reform bill would cause significant changes in immigrant welfare use, it has actually remained at the same level. The 1996 welfare reforms failed because while the legislation cut immigrants off from certain welfare programs, the savings that resulted from those cuts were not high enough to offset the increased usage of the remaining programs, due to the continuing high number of immigrants entering the U.S. every year.

While both Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and food stamp use have declined by four percent, the decline did not result in any significant savings, as those costs were offset by increases in Medicaid use, which has increased among immigrant households. The total combined value of benefits and payments received by immigrant households from welfare programs remained almost the same, averaging almost $2,000 in 2001, about 50 percent higher than natives. Such high rates of immigrant welfare use, combined with the rapidly increasing immigrant population, has resulted in a four percent increase in the number of immigrant households on welfare, from 14 percent in 1996 to 18 percent in 2000.

Therein lies part of the rub.

The idea that we need foreign labor to benefit American businessmen has had its day. If you can't afford to have your grass clipped, do it yourself. If the needed employee happens to be a high-end physicist, who just happens to be Mexican, we ought to find allowances for that person. For me the dividing line has much to do with the value that the foreign worker adds to the country. It's just not about Mexicans...at least for me.

To make a trivial point, the man who cuts my grass is a self-employed American, one who employs other native Americans. And, no, I don't mean American Indians, although American Indians would be fine with me.

To make another trivial point, I have no objection to any number of illegal or legal Muslim immigrants moving into the Netherlands, Germany or the UK.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

For me the dividing line has much to do with the value that the foreign worker adds to the country. It's just not about Mexicans...at least for me.

The American system is sometimes praised by some for doing that very well? Are they uninformed?

Doesn't it come down to who is doing the commentary? It should be mentioned, however, that anybody who agrees with me can never be far from the Truth.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The real target of such laws is illegal foreigners, similar to the story jax linked to, except looking Moroccan is more likely to get you in trouble than looking Mexican.

The people in this story are technically illegal, as is the husband in a recent Danish incident, as they all had broken some regulation, but as alleged their stories are all about otherwise law-abiding non-citizens who fairly accidentally ran afoul of the law and suffered fairly extreme consequences.

Originally posted by jax:

The people in this story are technically illegal, as is the husband in a recent Danish incident, as they all had broken some regulation, but as alleged their stories are all about otherwise law-abiding non-citizens who fairly accidentally ran afoul of the law and suffered fairly extreme consequences.

If that's technically illegal then I'm technically an illegal immigrant when I jaywalk. I know what you mean, but I like to nitpick. Sue me.

Google Translate did an amazing job there. I doubt I've ever seen it translate something so (seemingly) well. Sure, you don't extinguish lights, for instance, but it's usually a lot worse.

Originally posted by "Danish newspaper":

"If what you say is true, we see his passport, your Swedish marrage certificate and proof of application for a residence permit in Sweden, and evidence of your Swedish residence," said the policeman. 'So it does not go! ".

'Well, you mean it seriously? We can not possibly walk around with all the documents to us' I said.

The police officer is wrong. Just the marriage certificate is sufficient according to EU regulation. Of course, seeing how the couple didn't have that with them either, the police officer was still fully justified in temporarily locking him up.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Well, he can vote for Tim James running for governor in Alabama with the campaign promise that he'll make sure the driver's license test is only given in English. Never mind the fact that people that would vote for candidates like James barely speak English themselves....

They speak fine English, if not the English of the more highly educated. "Standard English" is a cudgel.
.........................................
[

The English after the scole of stratford atte bowe?

Aye Guv'nor. Thad'ud be th one.

The laws gone wrong. Send for Machete.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I agree, though I would imagine that any police officer worth their salt should be able to work with that to the very same result. But still, then we'd be talking about potential for abuse rather than the abuse being an essential part, which is already a lot better.

Before the law the police officer was not required to investigate immigration matters further, but now due to the section of the law that covers it, he is somewhat required to do so if he decides it's called for. Basically he is being given authority to do so in lieu of the Federals being there to do what they are obligated by law to do, but have neglected to do on a grand scale. The Federal Government has been chronically remiss in their responsibilities & obligations to what I believe is spelled out in existing immigration law, & also remiss in their responsibilities & obligations to the American people they are sworn to protect & defend through enforcement of those laws.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Now, if you'll explain what entity you have to replace the nation state, I'd love to hear it. And if I misunderstand and you DO think there should be immigration law, I'd also love to hear how you propose to enforce it. [...] So what do you propose to put in place of the nation-state as we now know it? I'm for immigration too, but I don't like the idea of anarchy either.

It doesn't follow that free movement into or out of a political entity means that the entity doesn't exist does it? Neither would free trade across the entity's border mean that there isn't a domestic economy.

I happen to think that underneath the nation states there is a network of city states relatively independent of the states they may happen to belong to.

What I am referring to is that that the nature of migration is changing as it is becoming more effortless. This makes both skilled and unskilled labour very mobile. They can go somewhere, and then they can go somewhere else with better conditions fairly freely until they establish a family, and less freely thereafter. The difference between the two groups is that the first group is largely wanted and the second group is largely unwanted. So people build walls, sometimes literally, to keep the second group out.

Increasingly I have come to the conclusion that this is a massive waste, that true unskilled labour is a rare phenomena. Country boy skills may not be so relevant in a city, but we have huge documentation that many of these nomads are capable to make great change that the better educated but settled natives haven't been able to do, and in any case most of them work harder to reach their goals.

Originally posted by jax:

that true unskilled labour is a rare phenomena

not here.. Basically apple pickers in this case. sorely needed.. The educated get sponsored and in that case do ,as you say, offer much. They marry have children become citizens etc,etc,etcd, The apple pickers help their own status in the world for themselves and their kids. also.There is nothing to be ashamed of by being a apple picker. In fact in my youth it was a perfectly honourable job. The drug runners do nothing but destroy what ever they touch. The answer to the problem is simple. The Unions are a hugh problem now. They prevent the influx of legal workers. As with the teachers, who are destroying education in this country. In the little town I live in this teacher ass ,looking at porn, on the job, could not be fired because of tenure.. It is out of hand.

edit: sorry I wandered,and these fools wonder why we have tea baggers.

"Unskilled" in that sense doesn't mean much more than "without formal education." In other words, without a piece of paper to show for it. In practice that means you can get started right away, but you either learn quickly or get fired. Or if you're not payed by the hour, but by how much you produce, it means you may just be tolerated while not doing yourself any service.

But without unions, how can you prevent being treated as commodity if you're on the working class side?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

it means you may just be tolerated while not doing yourself any service.

Horse shit..sorry I started piece work...good work only...guess what, ended up in corner office.. Unions are out of date, pure and simple. Look at GM.. Obama bailout of unions.. It goes on and on.. Teachers claim to be professionals. Professionals in world at large are not covered by Unions. You have to produce...Golly, held to a standard.. Unions ,in case , you unaware are managed by a bunch of corrupt twits....sorry again.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

it means you may just be tolerated while not doing yourself any service.

Horse shit..sorry I started piece work...good work only...guess what, ended up in corner office.

Huh? I said that while you'd get fired if you were paid by the hour and you didn't do too well, you might be tolerated if you do piece work. Unless you're saying that you were bad at your job and that you ended up in a corner office despite not performing well I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Unions ,in case , you unaware are managed by a bunch of corrupt twits....sorry again.

Of course unions may fall victim to exactly what they're meant to prevent, but the track record of Iraq doesn't exactly mean that republics have no future either. Around here less and less people are members of unions precisely because they're not as necessary as they used to be and also because some lost sight of their original purpose, but the important part is still here: the right to unionize, so unions can be formed if necessary.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

but the important part is still here: the right to unionize, so unions can be formed if necessary.

One of my favorite movies "A Perfect World". I remember seeing people walk without a union guess what happened, because they were right in their beefs they won. And this was a major US company at the time. ...When the economy is good unions are useless. When the ecomony is bad they make it worse.... not my fault... just is.'''meaning of is?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

but the important part is still here: the right to unionize, so unions can be formed if necessary.

The "U" word is about as bad as the "s"(socialism) word here in MS.

Originally posted by Denny77:

One of my favorite movies "A Perfect World". I remember seeing people walk without a union guess what happened, because they were right in their beefs they won. And this was a major US company at the time. ...When the economy is good unions are useless. When the ecomony is bad they make it worse.... not my fault... just is.'''meaning of is?

None of that makes any sense. Unions protect the interests of the employees, nothing more and nothing less. The rest of your comments are simply anti-union rhetoric. They're not more corrupt than the corporations, whose excesses they exist to restrain.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I carry my driver's license pretty much all the time. And have had to show it pretty frequently. No big deal.

I'm required to carry 4.. State DL, Federal Twic, Federal MMD, and MMOL. Then for Overseas IMO, STCW.


The only ones Bitchen about these laws are Scared little people that have something to hide.

Secure our borders then move to legalize the honest ones living here, and deport the criminals.

Originally posted by Redem:

Unions protect the interests of the employees, nothing more and nothing less.

At times they take things to Extremes.

Originally posted by Redem:

Unions protect the interests of the employees, nothing more and nothing less.

yea OK

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

At times they take things to Extremes.

No more extreme than when the employer screws over the employee.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

No more extreme than when the employer screws over the employee.

Like that happens all the time and everywhere.
America is living on fumes.

Originally posted by garydenness:

The laws gone wrong. Send for Machete.

Was about time he got his own movie

I tend to like Robert Rodrigeuz' movies, but Lindsay Lohan worries me.

Yeah, and Jaybro will be worried about the absence of Salma Hayek at least from the trailer

Going back to the original theme can one assume that thedawgfan lauds Arizona for the power of the State?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Going back to the original theme can one assume that thedawgfan lauds Arizona for the power of the State?

Thedawgfan has no problem with stricter borders and building bigger fences.
I do have a problem with racial-profiling, which is essentially what this law is.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Going back to the original theme can one assume that thedawgfan lauds Arizona for the power of the State?

Thedawgfan has no problem with stricter borders and building bigger fences.
I do have a problem with racial-profiling, which is essentially what this law is.

With "stricter borders and bigger fences" along the southwestern border, you're engaging in racial profiling against Latin Americans anyway. And if the intent of any law is to crack down on illegal immigrants AND their employers in this country, a good majority are from Latin America; and so it's still racial profiling.

Anyway, I wonder how many critics or supporters of the new law have even read it. Probably about as many as read the health care bill.

Racial profiling isn't defined so broadly, neither a strong immigration control policy nor the enforcement of such a policy counts unless they're selectively targeting some specific race. Which they're not. The problem with this law is that it does.

Knock,,,Knock,,,Hello....anybody home??

Of course it is going to end up as racial profiling. It has to.

It has all to do with the border with Mexico, not Canada....duh..

It's the illegal Mexicans, & other illegal South Americans that enter via Mexico that are the specific focus of this law, so I don't really think Arizona has a problem with an influx of brown Canadians sneaking into the state via Mexico to pick apples & prunes!

I really don't have a major problem with the law being generally directed towards the 'Hispanics' . It's a geographical formality that it does. What I really have a problem with is that it's implementation has the potential of being abused through ignoring the basic instances of just cause, & actual illegal search & seizure violations galore.

You have no problem with racial profiling? What a dick thing to support.As well have no problem with passing laws targeting black people, because "black people commit more crimes". It's an ethically identical position.

Conservatives always cringe at governmental over-reach.

I'd also target White bankers. Oh, and priests! Guess why.

Originally posted by Redem:

Racial profiling isn't defined so broadly, neither a strong immigration control policy nor the enforcement of such a policy counts unless they're selectively targeting some specific race. Which they're not. The problem with this law is that it does.

Latin Americans don't constitute a separate "race". My problem with the law isn't that it's "profiling" (which is kind of a silly charge anyway -- if most illegal immigrants are Latin, then Latins will of course be "profiled"), rather that it just doesn't seem very humane to go around rounding up large numbers of people who have more or less become established here and uproot them. I'm for the "path to citizenship" option along with beefing up the border.

That said, and playing devil's advocate, can you point out some specific language in the law that prescribes "profiling"?

Originally posted by Redem:

neither a strong immigration control policy nor the enforcement of such a policy counts

Wanna bet? Anything other than open borders is going to be condemned as "profiling" and discriminatory.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Conservatives always cringe at governmental over-reach.

A lot of them seemed to be OK with the Patriot Act, though, while a lot of liberals thought it was an abomination. On the other hand, telling me to buy health insurance is fine and proper. The search for consistency can be frustrating.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Wanna bet? Anything other than open borders is going to be condemned as "profiling" and discriminatory.

The system as it stands is not described as being engaged in racial profiling. It's far from an open border.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Latin Americans don't constitute a separate "race". My problem with the law isn't that it's "profiling" (which is kind of a silly charge anyway -- if most illegal immigrants are Latin, then Latins will of course be "profiled"), rather that it just doesn't seem very humane to go around rounding up large numbers of people who have more or less become established here and uproot them. I'm for the "path to citizenship" option along with beefing up the border.

For the purposes of this law, they do count as a race. There is no "black" race if we want to be truly technical about it, but we allow that level of leeway in the definition. If someone were to go around murdering illegal immigrants, we would describe it as a racism and a hate crime.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

which is kind of a silly charge anyway -- if most illegal immigrants are Latin, then Latins will of course be "profiled"

You can say the same about black people committing crimes, or Muslims committing bombings, or whatever else you want.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

That said, and playing devil's advocate, can you point out some specific language in the law that prescribes "profiling"?

There is only one factor that can lead to suspecting someone of being an illegal immigrant, race. More specifically, their colour and accent being "hispanic". There is no other factor, and this law orders the police to demand proof of legality whenever they are in lawful contact with anyone they might suspect is illegal.
Moreover, the language used does not require the same level of evidence of criminality as say, drug crimes, or murder, where you need to see something specific to suggest the person is a criminal. No, mere suspicion based on a single factor, race, is going to be the deciding factor. It's implicitly racist legislation.

I can see how some would assume the racial profiling bit but considering that in the locality of the State in question I think that is practically a bit absurd when you consider Mexicans are the problem? As they constitute the flood makes that point a bit bemusing to say the least and un-neccessary pontificating at worst?

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Wanna bet? Anything other than open borders is going to be condemned as "profiling" and discriminatory.

The system as it stands is not described as being engaged in racial profiling. It's far from an open border.

The system as it stands is also not all that stringent, judging from the numbers who are here.

Originally posted by Redem:

You can say the same about black people committing crimes, or Muslims committing bombings, or whatever else you want.

If a 40-year-old male white banker with blond hair, blue eyes and 6 feet tall absconds with bank funds, I am going to profile 40-year-old guys with blond hair, blue eyes and 6 feet tall.

Originally posted by Redem:

No, mere suspicion based on a single factor, race, is going to be the deciding factor. It's implicitly racist legislation.

Which is exactly why ANY change in the existing arrangement as far as immigration enforcement is concerned will always be considered "racist", since non-whites south of the border will be affected. Like I say, open borders is the only solution that wouldn't be called "racist" or "profiling".

On one level, all Arizona is doing is enforcing federal laws that are already on the books. Their sin is that the law will overwhelmingly affect Latinos because Latinos are for the most part the illegal immigrants in Arizona.

Originally posted by Redem:

There is no other factor, and this law orders the police to demand proof of legality whenever they are in lawful contact with anyone they might suspect is illegal.

Which in itself is not racial profiling. The words "lawful contact" were removed from the original bill and replaced with “lawful stop, detention or arrest". And that term as explained in a note to the bill “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The system as it stands is also not all that stringent, judging from the numbers who are here.

The numbers in the US are due to how many make the attempt, compared to how well defended the border is.
They know there is a lot of work just to the north, and thus good money they desperately need. Hell, look around the world, people are prepared to cross oceans on rotten boats and rafts to reach the first world nations. There's simply no practical defence that will prevent it.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

If a 40-year-old male white banker with blond hair, blue eyes and 6 feet tall absconds with bank funds, I am going to profile 40-year-old guys with blond hair, blue eyes and 6 feet tall.

But, you're not going to target every middle ages white guy as a potential fraudulent banker, and demand they prove themselves innocent on the spot, or they're under arrest until their innocence can be proven.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

On one level, all Arizona is doing is enforcing federal laws that are already on the books. Their sin is that the law will overwhelmingly affect Latinos because Latinos are for the most part the illegal immigrants in Arizona.

The problem is that they will be required to target anyone that looks "hispanic" for potentially being there illegally, and will arrest them unless they can prove themselves legal on the spot. That's just not right. With the stuff I generally carry around day to day, I couldn't prove I am in my own country legally. I doubt many people could.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Which in itself is not racial profiling. The words "lawful contact" were removed from the original bill and replaced with “lawful stop, detention or arrest". And that term as explained in a note to the bill “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

Doesn't fundamentally alter the problems with the bill, it remains the case that the only way this will work is by mass targeting of "hispanics". This will lead to a lot of unjustified arrests.

Originally posted by Redem:

Doesn't fundamentally alter the problems with the bill, it remains the case that the only way this will work is by mass targeting of "hispanics". This will lead to a lot of unjustified arrests.

I don't think it will increase in 'unjustified arrests', on the counter I think it will increase the number of 'justified arrests'---arrests of more illegal immigrants than ever before. I do foresee however that there will probably be more innocents being held over for questioning, & then released as an order of due process.

I still believe that the law as it stands, & it's implementation, still has the potential of being abused through ignoring the basic instances of just cause, & actual illegal search & seizure violations galore.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I don't think it will increase in 'unjustified arrests' ... [but] I do foresee however that there will probably be more innocents being held over for questioning, & then released as an order of due process.

What's an arrest to you?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I don't think it will increase in 'unjustified arrests', on the counter I think it will increase the number of 'justified arrests'---arrests of more illegal immigrants than ever before. I do foresee however that there will probably be more innocents being held over for questioning, & then released as an order of due process.

Being held of questioning based on nothing more than not being able to prove innocence on the spot, on the basis of being the wrong colour. Not an improvements, really, even if you prefer to not use the term "arrest".

The UN had something discusting to say about it also. What a frigging joke... You people worry about Arizona with all the crap going on in this world...enough to make a man drink...

Is profiling illegal?

If the FBI gets a tip that a recent arrival from Norway, a Norwegian citizen, has entered the country, El Paso to be specific, and is carrying a vial of potent virii with intent to release them in a crowded area, would common sense dictate that law enforcement concentrate on Hispanic suspects?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

If the FBI gets a tip that a recent arrival from Norway, a Norwegian citizen, has entered the country, El Paso to be specific, and is carrying a vial of potent virii with intent to release them in a crowded area, would common sense dictate that law enforcement concentrate on Hispanic suspects?

Heavens No.. oh my..

Should I ask a question I know the answer too?

It's complicated, would be the simple answer.

In the specific case you supply, law enforcement would be concentrated on people matching the description given of the individual Norwegian in question.

Taking this as a source.

II. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

In 1975, the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce held that a roving border patrol may stop vehicles "if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country."(14) However, the Border Patrol agents can only question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, or any suspicious circumstances; anything else requires consent or probable cause.(15)

The Court recognized several factors that may support an agent's reasonable suspicion: (1) characteristics of the area; (2) proximity to the border; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agent's previous experience with alien traffic; (5) information about recent illegal border crossings in the area; (6) driver's behavior, such as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade the agent; (7) aspects of the vehicle, such as that it is heavily loaded, has an extraordinary number of passengers, or that the agent observes its occupants attempting to hide; and (8) characteristics of passengers that indicate that they do not live in the United States, such as dress mode and-haircut.(16) Each case must be evaluated on the "totality of the particular circumstances."(17) The Supreme Court held that the roving border patrol stop in Brignoni-Ponce violated the Fourth Amendment because the stop was based on nothing more than the apparent Mexican ancestry of the vehicle's occupants.(18)

Six years later, the Supreme Court found that the roving border patrol stop in United States v. Cortez was constitutional because, unlike Brignoni-Ponce, the agents articulated reasonable facts that led to their conclusion that the vehicle contained illegal aliens.(19) In Cortez, Border Patrol agents found footprints in a remote part of an Arizona desert.(20) Over time, the agents continued to find similar sets of footprints in the same area.(21) The agents tracked and studied the footprints and concluded that on clear weekend nights a person had been leading illegal aliens to a vehicle.(22) The agents estimated the rate of travel for a group on foot in the desert, and parked their patrol car near the area at 1:00 a.m. on a Sunday, which was the first clear night in three days.(23) Because the agents had learned that the group would probably include about eight to twenty people, the agents concentrated on vehicles that could contain that many people without suspicion.(24) The agents observed a pickup truck with a camper shell at 4:30 a.m. with a partial license plate of "GN 88-."(25) About one and one-half hours later, a similar vehicle with the license plate "GN 8804" passed in the opposite direction.(26) The agents had previously determined that the vehicle would probably pass in one direction and then turn around and return.(27) The agents stopped the vehicle and discovered six illegal aliens.(28)

Brignoni-Ponce and Cortez are on opposite sides of a wide spectrum. While Brignoni-Ponce was completely devoid of any facts to support the stop, Cortez was so replete with facts that Chief Justice Warren Burger stated that it involved "the kind of police work often suggested by judges and scholars as examples of appropriate and reasonable means of law enforcement."(29) Ultimately, neither case is very helpful because most cases fall somewhere in between the two.

Basically, apparent ancestry is not justification for action by the police.

Or, the wiki, if you prefer.

Legality

In U.S. v. Montero-Camargo (208 F.3d 1122, 9th Cir. 2000), the court adopted the broad definition, declaring that race could not be used as a factor, even when other factors are present, to take a law enforcement action. The use of race as part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific case, however, is allowed.

At a Federal level, the government does not have the right to conduct searches based solely on racial profiling. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Since the majority of people of all races are law-abiding citizens, merely being of a race which a police officer believes to be more likely to commit a crime than another is not probable cause. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law. As such, it is unconstitutional for a representative of the government to make decisions based on race, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky and several other cases.

In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued its Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies forbidding racial profiling by federal law enforcement officials.[2]

Only in lillyput.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Should I ask a question I know the answer too?

Nothing new there. Go ahead.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Nothing new there. Go ahead.

Sharp as a razor today ain't you? Raining here also.

Than a cracker. Georgia cracker, that is.

Weather sucks here, too.

It's apparently one of the coldest Mays since they started recording around here. It certainly is quite cold (& windy & rainy).

While around here it's too warm for the season

Originally posted by Redem:

The problem is that they will be required to target anyone that looks "hispanic" for potentially being there illegally, and will arrest them unless they can prove themselves legal on the spot. That's just not right.

That's not entirely accurate, but let's say that it is for argument's sake. In that case, all a Latin American illegal immigrant has to do is get across the border, and then it's Olly Olly Oxen Free, since it would be deeply unjust for any authority to ask any Latino/a to prove that he/she is here legally.

Originally posted by Redem:

But, you're not going to target every middle ages white guy as a potential fraudulent banker, and demand they prove themselves innocent on the spot, or they're under arrest until their innocence can be proven.

For just one? No. If hundreds fitting that same description? Yes.

Originally posted by Redem:

The Court recognized several factors that may support an agent's reasonable suspicion: (1) characteristics of the area; (2) proximity to the border; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agent's previous experience with alien traffic; (5) information about recent illegal border crossings in the area; (6) driver's behavior, such as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade the agent; (7) aspects of the vehicle, such as that it is heavily loaded, has an extraordinary number of passengers, or that the agent observes its occupants attempting to hide; and (8) characteristics of passengers that indicate that they do not live in the United States, such as dress mode and-haircut.(16) Each case must be evaluated on the "totality of the particular circumstances."(17) The Supreme Court held that the roving border patrol stop in Brignoni-Ponce violated the Fourth Amendment because the stop was based on nothing more than the apparent Mexican ancestry of the vehicle's occupants.(18)

I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Courts findings here. There was no 'just cause' issue involved with the stop except the fact that there was a total absence of 'just cause' period.

That is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier posts.

Now, if the cops stopped a vehicle because the right rear break light was broken & inoperative (definitely a violation of Arizona traffic law), & asked the normal question "Can I see your license & registration" upon which the driver provided an obviously bogus license, & at that precise time because of this license presented the cop decided that he may have a possible illegal alien in front of him, & after checking the license via computer & finding it is actually bogus, he would be remiss in his responsibilities & obligations under this 'new' State law if he didn't ask to see other acceptable 'proper identification'. The driver could provide none. Being now the cop had an even stronger stronger suspicion he was possibly dealing with an illegal alien, he then took this gentleman into headquarters for further investigation.

Would you consider this action correct or incorrect?

PS....Nobody is aware why the cop was watching this vehicle in the first place, but somehow I would think you might possibly have difficulty with the stop, & subsequent activity, if it was anything but coincidental.

Just for further information in case anyone is actually interested in the text of the law under discussion (in PDF form). If it has been provided earlier, please accept my apology in advance for overlooking it.

House Bill 2162 modifies the recently passed Senate Bill 1070, which calls for stringent enforcement of Arizona laws against illegal immigration.

The pdf document of H.B. 2162 can be found here ----> http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/HB_2162Signed.pdf

It is also contained here.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

For just one? No. If hundreds fitting that same description? Yes.

You're not serious, there are thousands of white collar criminals (probably more, I really don't have the numbers for this sort of crime) with that description probably being the predominant one. Yet no one is suggesting we require everyone of that description to prove their innocence.

Moreover, it is illegal for the same reasons the bill in question should be. Violation of the fourth. Simply looking "hispanic" is not "probable cause" that you have committed an immigration related crime.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

That's not entirely accurate, but let's say that it is for argument's sake. In that case, all a Latin American illegal immigrant has to do is get across the border, and then it's Olly Olly Oxen Free, since it would be deeply unjust for any authority to ask any Latino/a to prove that he/she is here legally.

If their race is the only reason they're asking, yes, it is.
If there is ample evidence of actual criminality, including immigration related offences, they can already ask for your ID and check up on you.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Now, if the cops stopped a vehicle because the right rear break light was broken & inoperative (definitely a violation of Arizona traffic law), & asked the normal question "Can I see your license & registration" upon which the driver provided an obviously bogus license, & at that precise time because of this license presented the cop decided that he may have a possible illegal alien in front of him, & after checking the license via computer & finding it is actually bogus, he would be remiss in his responsibilities & obligations under this 'new' State law if he didn't ask to see other acceptable 'proper identification'. The driver could provide none. Being now the cop had an even stronger stronger suspicion he was possibly dealing with an illegal alien, he then took this gentleman into headquarters for further investigation.

Would you consider this action correct or incorrect?

They can already do this. The presence of a false ID card is enough to investigate further under current laws.

What the new law seeks is to require the detention of anyone who looks Mexican, while going about their lawful business, unless they can prove on the spot that they are legally in the country.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

For just one? No. If hundreds fitting that same description? Yes.

You're not serious, there are thousands of white collar criminals (probably more, I really don't have the numbers for this sort of crime) with that description probably being the predominant one. Yet no one is suggesting we require everyone of that description to prove their innocence.

Far-right groups are "profiled" all the time, post-McVeigh. That's because a lot of those same groups SHOULD be watched. Are you going to cry about it?

Originally posted by Redem:

If their race is the only reason they're asking, yes, it is.
If there is ample evidence of actual criminality, including immigration related offences, they can already ask for your ID and check up on you.

What constitutes "ample evidence of actual criminality, including immigration related offenses"? Where I used to live, there were huge INS raids on Mexican restaurants, and quite a few illegal immigrants working there were deported. Was that a violation of rights? Was that "profiling"?

"Asking for ID" is profiling as well, unless they happen to find a sufficient number of Chinese and Poles and Russians -- or Anglos, for that matter -- of whom to demand the same.

Originally posted by Redem:

What the new law seeks is to require the detention of anyone who looks Mexican, while going about their lawful business, unless they can prove on the spot that they are legally in the country.

You haven't even read the law!

Admit it, because if you had you would immediately retract that lie those false statements.

Nothing you said in the above quote has any factual merit whatsoever, except that it solidifies the obvious fact that you must have an agenda--or support an agenda--that will benefit from blatant lies inaccuracies like the one I quoted above!

Flat out wrong!

I'm willing to talk about the law--the real law on the books, but what you're sprouting is nowhere in it, or remotely close to it.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill modifying her state’s controversial new immigration law, saying it will “make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal,” reports the Arizona Republic. The new law, scheduled to be effective July 29, amends the law signed last week that requires police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect to be in the country illegally.

The latest measure bars race from being considered when deciding whether to inquire about a person’s status, “except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.” It also clarifies that law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they “stop, detain or arrest.” The earlier bill simply said “contact.” The change is designed to allay fears that officers would have to examine the papers of anyone they spoke to, including crime victims and witnesses.

Read the Law!

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Far-right groups are "profiled" all the time, post-McVeigh. That's because a lot of those same groups SHOULD be watched. Are you going to cry about it?

Based on behaviour, not on race. It's not the same thing at all.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

What constitutes "ample evidence of actual criminality, including immigration related offenses"? Where I used to live, there were huge INS raids on Mexican restaurants, and quite a few illegal immigrants working there were deported. Was that a violation of rights? Was that "profiling"?

Depends. Was the raid conducted based on actual evidence, or simply because it was a Mexican restaurant? That's the difference we're looking at, here.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

"Asking for ID" is profiling as well, unless they happen to find a sufficient number of Chinese and Poles and Russians -- or Anglos, for that matter -- of whom to demand the same.

If you only ask for ID because they look Mexican and you want to see if they're in the country legally, yes.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I'm willing to talk about the law--the real law on the books, but what you're sprouting is nowhere in it, or remotely close to it.

Actually, it is, except for that one time where I misspoke slightly.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Read the Law!

You mean the altered law. The original had no such clause. Also, the addition of that clause is toothless, the only reason one might suspect someone is an illegal immigrant is based on race.

Just one more note about 'Racial Profiling' particularly do with the issue of targeting Mexicans.

Even though the issue here primarily deals with the Border Patrol, it seems that it might somehow find it's way into most any State legislation's regarding Illegal Immigration.

It was a powerful 9-0 (unanimous for those numerically challenged) Supreme Court decision which seems to permit some forms of 'Racial Profiling' for illegal immigration enforcement.

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called United States vs. Brignoni-Ponce. In that case, a roving unit of the U.S. Border Patrol stopped a vehicle near the Mexican border and questioned the occupants about their immigration status. In this case, the court wrote, "the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry."

In a 9-0 decision, the court ruled that "because of the important governmental interest in preventing the illegal entry of aliens at the border, the minimal intrusion of a brief stop, and the absence of practical alternatives for policing the border, an officer, whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, may stop the car briefly, question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause."

In the majority opinion, Justice Lewis Powell continued, "The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor," even though "standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens." In other words, racial factors can be legitimately used in profiling, just as long as they are not the only factors..........

Quite frankly, I was surprised that it was a 9-0 Unanimous decision, for those kinds of decisions are quite rare, & particularly regarding this issue which can be highly emotionally charged.

Comes to something when the courts are willing to ignore the 4th amendment. No probably cause required, as long as they look Mexican.

Originally posted by Redem:

You mean the altered law. The original had no such clause. Also, the addition of that clause is toothless, the only reason one might suspect someone is an illegal immigrant is based on race.

Altered Law. This law doesn't even go into effect until I believe late July, 2010. Until then, as with all 'future' law, it is subject to revision(s). Your words are dated TODAY, so the Law as it stands TODAY is the only valid law for TODAY.

It's toothless? Not really, unless you believe ALL law is similarly toothless.

And, I believe your use of race is merely a convenient leftist ploy. First of all there is no such thing as the Mexican Race, or South American Race, or for that matter a Brown Race. Well, not yet anyway. Races - Classifications of Human Beings.

Ethnic Group maybe, but Race...NO...that perro she no hunt senor!

I would think that the Sombrero, coupled with the Sarape, tan trousers & sandals aided by the accent, Fu Manchu style mustache, & faint scent of re-fried beans on the subjects breath would paint a more credible picture than some factitious race.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Far-right groups are "profiled" all the time, post-McVeigh. That's because a lot of those same groups SHOULD be watched. Are you going to cry about it?

Based on behaviour, not on race. It's not the same thing at all.

Not based on behavior, but rather on political beliefs and their ethnic makeup, and because they "fit the profile" of those who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing. It's "profiling".

Originally posted by Redem:

Depends. Was the raid conducted based on actual evidence, or simply because it was a Mexican restaurant? That's the difference we're looking at, here.

The courts seemed to think it was based on evidence. "Probable cause".

Originally posted by Redem:

If you only ask for ID because they look Mexican and you want to see if they're in the country legally, yes.

So no checkpoints at the border at all, since the authorities are only assuming based on the race of those coming from the south that they MAY be illegal. In other words, only open borders are allowable, as I said.

Originally posted by Redem:

You mean the altered law. The original had no such clause. Also, the addition of that clause is toothless, the only reason one might suspect someone is an illegal immigrant is based on race.

No, it's based on the fact that they're coming from Mexico. The "Mexican race" (whatever that is) isn't the only one coming in illegally from that area.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It's toothless? Not really, unless you believe ALL law is similarly toothless.

All similar clauses, yes. They're ass covering in the case of law suits.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

And, I believe your use of race is merely a convenient leftist ploy. First of all there is no such thing as the Mexican Race, or South American Race, or for that matter a Brown Race. Well, not yet anyway. Races - Classifications of Human Beings.

Ethnic Group maybe, but Race...NO...that perro she no hunt senor!

You're using a highly technical definition of "race", I responded to a similar point above.

In the general usage, race and ethnic group are synonymous. I'll quote myself from above, save you searching for it.

For the purposes of this law, they do count as a race. There is no "black" race if we want to be truly technical about it, but we allow that level of leeway in the definition. If someone were to go around murdering illegal immigrants, we would describe it as a racism and a hate crime.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I would think that the Sombrero, coupled with the Sarape, tan trousers & sandals aided by the accent, Fu Manchu style mustache, & faint scent of re-fried beans on the subjects breath would paint a more credible picture than some factitious race.

And this we would describe as a racial stereotype.

Now, I know this doesn't mean a hill of re-fried beans, but public sentiment all across the USA---including Arizona---are overwhelmingly in favor of & support the New Arizona Immigration Bill.

Even the Democrats are surprisingly divided over this issue.

There is even report of a poll that suggests that Latino's in Arizona might even support the new legislation/law.

Somehow, I just find this a bit hard to believe, but you never know. Until I see the hard numbers from the supposed Rasmussen Report though, I will reserve my opinion, but if it's true that would really be an eye opener.

The public broadly supports a new Arizona law aimed at dealing with illegal immigration and the law's provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people who are suspected of being in the country illegally.

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

Source


PS.....I must remind you, that whenever you see this type of statement "...the law's provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people..." it is meant that they can only stop & detain people while these people are suspected of other illegal activity. That is an integral component contained within this new law, & the part which I feel is most apt, if any, to be too loosely interpreted or misused.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by Redem:

The Court recognized several factors that may support an agent's reasonable suspicion: (1) characteristics of the area; (2) proximity to the border; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agent's previous experience with alien traffic; (5) information about recent illegal border crossings in the area; (6) driver's behavior, such as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade the agent; (7) aspects of the vehicle, such as that it is heavily loaded, has an extraordinary number of passengers, or that the agent observes its occupants attempting to hide; and (8) characteristics of passengers that indicate that they do not live in the United States, such as dress mode and-haircut.(16) Each case must be evaluated on the "totality of the particular circumstances."(17) The Supreme Court held that the roving border patrol stop in Brignoni-Ponce violated the Fourth Amendment because the stop was based on nothing more than the apparent Mexican ancestry of the vehicle's occupants.(18)

I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Courts findings here. There was no 'just cause' issue involved with the stop except the fact that there was a total absence of 'just cause' period.

From these reports of the Supreme court, my understanding is that a level of Racial Profiling is permitted to aid in identifying 'just cause', but that profiling is not 'just cause' in itself. I don't see much wrong with that. In respects of this law, it threatens to permit the police to be immediately suspicious of all hispanics, but so long as they're cautious not to harass every hispanic they see then I'd hope it could be okay.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Now, if the cops stopped a vehicle because the right rear break light was broken & inoperative (definitely a violation of Arizona traffic law), & asked the normal question "Can I see your license & registration" upon which the driver provided an obviously bogus license, & at that precise time because of this license presented the cop decided that he may have a possible illegal alien in front of him, & after checking the license via computer & finding it is actually bogus, he would be remiss in his responsibilities & obligations under this 'new' State law if he didn't ask to see other acceptable 'proper identification'. The driver could provide none. Being now the cop had an even stronger stronger suspicion he was possibly dealing with an illegal alien, he then took this gentleman into headquarters for further investigation.

Would you consider this action correct or incorrect?

I'd consider it completely correct.
Making it part of the normal run of things for everybody that when you are stopped by the police for any reason they will ask for id, and failure to provide it will result in a round-trip to your house, place of work or whatever to prove who you are; this would probably be the least intrusive way of enforcing the carrying of ID for the individual.

But how about this: Rather than targeting individuals, target their place of employment. Make it so that employers must prove that their workers are legit. Part of the problem (as I understand it) is that Mexicans go to the US to find work; the fact that they can find work means that they keep on coming. If you allow for officers to question business owners to prove they aren't employing illegal workers then you're not infringing anyone's civil liberties on the street so innocent people just get on with their business unaware. While the employer who can't verify his workforce faces fines and jail time. This would make it undesirable for anyone to hire illegal workers, no matter how cheap their labour costs.

Of course, there will be those who get by on their own, selling crap on the streets or whatnot. Can the IRS not see to it that they're brought in on tax evasion offences?

Please tell me this sort of legislation doesn't already exist, because if it does, then the new law seems a bit unnecessary.

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

Please tell me this sort of legislation doesn't already exist, because if it does, then the new law seems a bit unnecessary.

The new law would be completely unnecessary if the Feds would get off their collective dead asses and enforce the laws that are already on the books. That must start at the top. The Obama Administration pitched a lot of slather about Immigration Reform, but to date it hasn't done squat about reform, much less enforcement of existing law! All it's done is seek to divide for political advantage, & bankrupt the country with ill conceived & unsustainable programs & legislation. At that they excel! The Attorney General was questioned by Congress where he stated he was going to persue overturning the Arizona Law because in his opinion it was un-constitutional. Later he was forced under oath to admit he never even read the 10 page law at all, & didn't know first hand what it contained! Seems to be all the rage in this Administration, vote on things they don't read or know about, & damn & ridicule things they have no first hand knowledge of!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

Please tell me this sort of legislation doesn't already exist, because if it does, then the new law seems a bit unnecessary.

The new law would be completely unnecessary if the Feds would get off their collective dead asses and enforce the laws that are already on the books. That must start at the top.

Well, you have a point, since it's a state issue as well. As recent failed Senate candidate and Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley recently said, "Technically, it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts". But of course that was before they rounded up a few immigrants in connection with the would-be Times Square bomber. Opinion piece here.

One of the illegals arrested yesterday had even been ordered out of the country. But he refused to leave Massachusetts, and you ask, why should he have? As Marsha Coakley put it: Technically, it’s not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts.

Through the looking-glass.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

As recent failed Senate candidate and Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley recently said, "Technically, it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts".

Conflicts of interest abound. Legal Illegal Aliens make for wonderful democrat voters--dumb a tad bit intellectually insecure & plentiful!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Legal Illegal Aliens make for wonderful democrat voters

There's just that many, eh?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

There's just that many, eh?

The next election they are going to need all they can get......... or have the showdown in Chicago ....those curropt demis know how to make the dead vote....
The have backslid lately ...

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Legal Illegal Aliens make for wonderful democrat voters

There's just that many, eh?

Well, the dead tend to vote republican