Arizona passed a bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042301250.html?hpid=topnews) that gives police officers the power to catch unwanted criminals.
What do you think about it?
In a world without racism, I would be for this, as the ones prosecuted (if done correctly) would be illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, racism does exist, as do statistics, and so prejudice remains supreme and will further divide the society apart. Heh, you can apply physics to behavior, everything is constantly becoming "messier"
The bill itself states that racial profiling would be illegal and can't be used.
There are other ways to have reasonable suspicion. For example: Lets say a cop pulls over someone for a traffic violation and the driver is unable to produce licence and registration. The cop then asks the driver where he is from and the driver can't get his story straight. Black, white, or hispanic doesn't matter in this case, because there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
Hispanics are more worried about the cops deporting their illegal family members, then a cop asking for identification.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 24, 2010, 09:16:49 AM
Hispanics are more worried about the cops deporting their illegal family members, then a cop asking for identification.
Stereotypical much?
Meh. Considering that Arizona is near Mexico and thus the majority of illegal immigrants to it will be Mexican, I'm more ticked off by the idea that this law will get some random activists to decry 'racial profiling' because the majority of people to be prosecuted by this law will almost definitely be Mexican.
I agree. A clear case of people ignoring cause and affect and statistics because the results show up as racist.
Mexicans ARE usually the ones crossing the border BECAUSE THEY CAN DO SO WITHOUT A BOAT
Jews DID tend to (Edit) be called "money-grubbers" due to their place as bankers in many nations. This position was beause most religons at the time, especially Christianity, had the idea that handling money was a sin. Thus, they usually had the Jews (who had no problem with it) or servants take jobs involving money.
There are other examples, but i recently heard lectures involving both these examples, with undereducated people arguing that these facts were wrong because they are racist. It was during a debate about affirmative action-and it was accepted as a valid point!
Quote from: mikew781 on April 24, 2010, 05:05:37 PM
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 24, 2010, 09:16:49 AM
Hispanics are more worried about the cops deporting their illegal family members, then a cop asking for identification.
Stereotypical much?
I live in Texas, so I know more about illegal immigration then most notherners. Most hispanics(not all) have family who is illegal. Several of my classmates were born in the US, but their parents came here illegally. One guy claims that he carries his birth certificate in his wallet at all times. The issue they have is not proving that they are citizens; the issue is their parents, cousins, older siblings, and other relatives may be deported. "Racial profiling" is a pretext to prevent Arizona law enforcement from deporting hispanics.
Quote from: Pylons on April 24, 2010, 05:28:45 PM
Meh. Considering that Arizona is near Mexico and thus the majority of illegal immigrants to it will be Mexican, I'm more ticked off by the idea that this law will get some random activists to decry 'racial profiling' because the majority of people to be prosecuted by this law will almost definitely be Mexican.
Would you call a law that helps catch murders "sexest", because a majority of murders are committed by men? I don't care about the demographics. I don't care if the illegal immigrants are from Mexico, Kenya (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d945tee01&show_article=1), Afghanistan, China, or Canada. They committed a crime and should be punished for it.
Quote from: mikew781 on April 24, 2010, 05:36:31 PM
Jews DID tend to be money-grubbers due to their place as bankers in many nations. This position was beause most religons at the time, especially Christianity, had the idea that handling money was a sin. Thus, they usually had the Jews (who had no problem with it) or servants take jobs involving money.
It is more likely that some racists were jealous of financially successful jews and they tried to make their financial success a bad thing by calling them "money-grubbers".
I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not trying to sound racist and your careless wording was misinterpreted as racist.
Quote from: mikew781 on April 24, 2010, 05:36:31 PMJews DID tend to be money-grubbers due to their place as bankers in many nations. This position was beause most religons at the time, especially Christianity, had the idea that handling money was a sin. Thus, they usually had the Jews (who had no problem with it) or servants take jobs involving money.
Hold on a second. You are correct that usury was oftentimes left to European jews during the Middle Ages, but money grubber (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money-grubber) is a term with serious negative connotations, ones which really aren't justified by the facts you're presenting. History isn't destiny, and heritage isn't identity. Just because some Jews were left to become bankers centuries ago, that does not mean that modern-day Jews are bankers, much less obsessed with money.
I would like to remind everyone to steer clear of promulgating racial stereotypes on these boards. That is something I absolutely will not tolerate here.
apologies, that was an unecessary negative connatation
I was just far to irratated with the recent lecture that i heard somebody at my school give my friend (who is Jewish) when he suggested that his surname origanted as a slur from banking
Fair enough. Apology accepted. :)
Quote from: CraigStern on April 25, 2010, 06:04:32 PM
Fair enough. Apology accepted. :)
With that settled, do you have an opinionon the original topic.
I don't approve of legislation which gives anyplace the feel of a police state. Requiring people to carry around papers documenting their citizenship status and allowing the police to stop people without probable cause goes much too far for my tastes.
Quote from: CraigStern on April 25, 2010, 07:30:50 PM
I don't approve of legislation which gives anyplace the feel of a police state. Requiring people to carry around papers documenting their citizenship status and allowing the police to stop people without probable cause goes much too far for my tastes.
Don't you have your drivers license on your person at all times anyway? The police are only allowed to stop people with reasonable suspicion or "probable cause".
just because the bill makes racial profiling illegal, doesn't mean it will stop it, even in our own law enforcement. The police can all ways find a reason to pull somebody over. I don't know about the pigs around you, but round here, if they don't like the look of ya they'll "find" something to take you in on. It's not right, but it happens.
so I will not support a law that just gives them another way to abuse their power. Sure, there are good cops, but there are bitter angry ones that see the whole world as another criminal, and will do anything to express their "power"
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 24, 2010, 08:07:16 PM
Quote from: Pylons on April 24, 2010, 05:28:45 PM
Meh. Considering that Arizona is near Mexico and thus the majority of illegal immigrants to it will be Mexican, I'm more ticked off by the idea that this law will get some random activists to decry 'racial profiling' because the majority of people to be prosecuted by this law will almost definitely be Mexican.
Would you call a law that helps catch murders "sexest", because a majority of murders are committed by men? I don't care about the demographics. I don't care if the illegal immigrants are from Mexico, Kenya (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d945tee01&show_article=1), Afghanistan, China, or Canada. They committed a crime and should be punished for it.
[/quote]
I wouldn't. A yellow paper will, inevitably, try to sensationalize a topic as sensitive and debatable as illegal immigration. There would inevitably be stories about little children being sent to foster homes when their parents got deported.
The problem with 'reasonable suspicion' or 'probable cause' is that those terms can easily be taken out of context, because they are very difficult to quantify.
Ultimately, while I generally agree with the idea, I do agree with im2smart4u's comment that racial profiling is going to be a pretext for repealing or protesting the law.
And protesters piss me off.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 25, 2010, 07:52:54 PMDon't you have your drivers license on your person at all times anyway? The police are only allowed to stop people with reasonable suspicion or "probable cause".
I usually do--but the law doesn't require me to (unless, of course, I'm driving).
Also, keep in mind that probable cause is the bare minimum required for police to perform a warrantless search or seizure under the 4th Amendment. From what I've read, the Arizona bill permits the cops to arrest people based on just reasonable suspicion. Those are two different standards, with probable cause being a higher bar for police to meet than reasonable suspicion.
Quote from: Pylons on April 25, 2010, 09:29:11 PM
I wouldn't. A yellow paper will, inevitably, try to sensationalize a topic as sensitive and debatable as illegal immigration. There would inevitably be stories about little children being sent to foster homes when their parents got deported.
There are also stories on the other side of the issue. The inability to enforce the law encourages illegal immigrants to come here and some commit murders like the death of Robert Krentz (http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m3d28-Arizona-rancher-murdered-by-illegal-immigrant-who-flees-to-Mexico).
Quote from: Pylons on April 25, 2010, 09:29:11 PMAnd protesters piss me off.
I don't really mind as long as it is legal and nonviolent. The first admendment gives the right to protest to
American citizens.
Quote from: CraigStern on April 25, 2010, 10:48:29 PM
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 25, 2010, 07:52:54 PMDon't you have your drivers license on your person at all times anyway? The police are only allowed to stop people with reasonable suspicion or "probable cause".
I usually do--but the law doesn't require me to (unless, of course, I'm driving).
Also, keep in mind that probable cause is the bare minimum required for police to perform a warrantless search or seizure under the 4th Amendment. From what I've read, the Arizona bill permits the cops to arrest people based on just reasonable suspicion. Those are two different standards, with probable cause being a higher bar for police to meet than reasonable suspicion.
To me, you explanation between the differences between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" is like differentiating a "secretary" from an "administrative assistant". It is a different name for the same thing.
Plus, doesn't a cop have to justify reasonable suspicion, because if he can't, then a court case would be thrown out for violating the fourth amendment? (This isn't one of my rhetorical questions. I am realy asking.)
Well, here is (in really simplistic terms) how it works. An arrest is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. (There are other things that count as a seizure as well, but we're not talking about those right now.) In order to seize someone, a police officer needs probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause. They are two different legal standards. Reasonable suspicion has been defined as "a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity." That's only enough to justify a so-called Terry stop, in which a police officer stops someone to briefly ask them some questions. That isn't enough to justify an arrest.
Probable cause, which is necessary for an arrest, requires "known facts and circumstances." So it's not enough that a policeman is suspicious, and can articulate why. He also has to have sufficient facts that objectively make it reasonable for him to suspect that the person he's arresting has committed a particular crime.
Here is an article that explains it pretty well: http://donsobservs.blogspot.com/2006/08/probable-cause-v-reasonable-suspicion.html
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 24, 2010, 09:16:49 AMThere are other ways to have reasonable suspicion. For example: Lets say a cop pulls over someone for a traffic violation and the driver is unable to produce licence and registration. The cop then asks the driver where he is from and the driver can't get his story straight. Black, white, or hispanic doesn't matter in this case, because there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
So this scenario would be considered reasonable suspicion, while the inability to provide any sort of documentation that proves one is in the country legaly would be considered probable cause.
Fruit from the poisoned tree?
In the case Mapp v. Ohio, it was decided that you can't prosecute anyone on evidence obtained not the original target of the search/seizure.
Quote from: Pylons on April 28, 2010, 12:14:23 AM
In the case Mapp v. Ohio, it was decided that you can't prosecute anyone on evidence obtained not the original target of the search/seizure.
I don't think that is true at all.
Mapp v. Ohio said you can't use evidence that was illegally seized to prosecute a crimminal. I don't even see how this court case applies to this new law.
Having now read the text of the bill (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf), it seems the rumor about it authorizing an arrest based on reasonable suspicion is false. This is what the reasonable suspicion section says:
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Quote from: CraigStern on April 28, 2010, 10:23:29 AM
For any lawful contact made by a law enfrocement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released the person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 30 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
The rumor about racially profiling is false too. Law enforcement will be breaking the law if they use racially profiling.
Weeeeell, maybe.
The wording they use there is a little tricky. It says: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."
If they combine racial or nationality discrimination with something else, then presumably it won't conflict with this law. So maybe the cops can get a reasonable suspicion from Hispanic + expired license plates, and it will be okay under the law, even though they're exclusively targeting Hispanics. Does that make sense?
Quote from: CraigStern on April 28, 2010, 07:34:28 PMIf they combine racial or nationality discrimination with something else, then presumably it won't conflict with this law. So maybe the cops can get a reasonable suspicion from Hispanic + expired license plates, and it will be okay under the law, even though they're exclusively targeting Hispanics. Does that make sense?
Wouldn't anyone have to show a license and registration? If they can't provide a license and registration, then it would be reasonable to check their citizenship after not finding their name in the system.
If they're stopped, sure. But the point is that the cops are allowed to use race or nationality as a factor in deciding whom to stop under this law. It just can't be the only factor.
Quote from: CraigStern on April 29, 2010, 04:45:53 PM
If they're stopped, sure. But the point is that the cops are allowed to use race or nationality as a factor in deciding whom to stop under this law. It just can't be the only factor.
Cops are not allowed to stop people for no reason. They can only ask people for identification during lawful contact (http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/19386883#video=19368260)(like a traffic violation). White, hispanic, black, and blue drivers are all already required to be driving with a licence. It is a falsed rumor that a cop can harrass a hispanic american for just taking his/her kids out for ice cream.
Not really, if a cop wants to pull you over, I'm pretty sure he could find a reason.
Quote from: Zhampir on April 29, 2010, 10:09:27 PM
Not really, if a cop wants to pull you over, I'm pretty sure he could find a reason.
Again, if you are on the road, then you would already have a licence. I am saying a cop can't ask random people on the street to show identification. They are making a mountain out of a molehill. I have been pulled over and shown my licence before and it wasn't a big deal.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 26, 2010, 02:51:51 PM
[...] The inability to enforce the law encourages illegal immigrants to come here and some commit murders like the death of Robert Krentz (http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m3d28-Arizona-rancher-murdered-by-illegal-immigrant-who-flees-to-Mexico).
I must say that I strongly disagree with that sentence. Although you didn't write it explicitly, it seems that you're implying that illegal immigrants come to commit murders. From my point of view, illegal immigrants try to go to a country that (in their perspective) will provide them a better living. Furthermore, regarding the crimes committed by illegal immigrants, I think (but I don't have the statistics to back or to disprove my opinion) that illegal immigrants might have the same probability (if not lower) to commit a crime when compared with a local resident with the same income and education.
I'm not from the USA, so my views might be biased from what happens in my country. From what I've seen, a cop is more likely to pick on someone poor than on someone rich. Simply because they think twice before picking someone that might give them an hard time. And usually, the immigrants and their descendants have lower income, so, that's where some of the bias comes from.
I agree with Zhampir. A cop can make up a reason to pull me over. If it's just the two of us in there, it's my word against his word. Nonetheless, most of them will not do that, but we know that there are prejudiced people everywhere.
Quote from: Ertxiem on April 30, 2010, 11:35:40 AM
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 26, 2010, 02:51:51 PM
[...] The inability to enforce the law encourages illegal immigrants to come here and some commit murders like the death of Robert Krentz (http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m3d28-Arizona-rancher-murdered-by-illegal-immigrant-who-flees-to-Mexico).
I must say that I strongly disagree with that sentence. Although you didn't write it explicitly, it seems that you're implying that illegal immigrants come to commit murders.
Other then drug cartels, illegal immigrants don't come to the US to commit murder. Although if illegal immigrants were unable to stay in the country, because the law is being enforced, then they would not try to come here illegally in the first place. If illegal immigrants were not invading the southern border, then people like Robert Krentz (http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m3d28-Arizona-rancher-murdered-by-illegal-immigrant-who-flees-to-Mexico) wouldn't have to die.
Quote from: Ertxiem on April 30, 2010, 11:35:40 AM
I agree with Zhampir. A cop can make up a reason to pull me over. If it's just the two of us in there, it's my word against his word. Nonetheless, most of them will not do that, but we know that there are prejudiced people everywhere.
When you show the cop your drivers licence, then what can he do? Other then give you a ticket for the crime he pulled you over for, he can't do anything new against legal immigrants and US citizens. This law doesn't give cops anymore power to harass US citizens, then they had before the law was passed. If a prejudiced cop wants to harass American hispanics over traffic violations, then he will do so with or without the new law.
Quote from: CraigStern on April 28, 2010, 07:34:28 PM
The wording they use there is a little tricky. It says: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."
The bill has been revised to where the word "
solely" has been removed. If you listen to the rhetoric of the protesters, then you will noticed that their major issue with the bill is that the law punishes illegal immigrants. Punishing illegal immigrants isn't unconsitutional, so people are pretending that bill is promoting racial profiling to have the courts throw out the bill.
Since about 70% of Arizonans and 60% of Americans support the bill, does that mean that there is widespread racism the Uninited States? Or is more likely that the people support enforcing a bill that helps enforces the law in a non-racist way?
Do you have a link to the revised text of the bill?
Quote from: CraigStern on May 03, 2010, 04:32:31 PM
Do you have a link to the revised text of the bill?
You don't believe me. :'( Here is your link. (http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/6/47/206/64720634-4e56-11df-9876-001cc4c03286.pdf.pdf?_dc=1272645050)
It's not that I don't believe you--I just like to read these things for myself. ;)
Anyway, that's good that they changed that! I think the reason many people are still concerned about the bill is that they don't trust law enforcement officers (already somewhat notorious for racial profiling (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/racial-profiling)) to enforce the law even-handedly with the threat of lawsuits from private citizens hanging over their heads.
Quote from: CraigStern on May 03, 2010, 09:10:30 PMAnyway, that's good that they changed that! I think the reason many people are still concerned about the bill is that they don't trust law enforcement officers (already somewhat notorious for racial profiling (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/racial-profiling)) to enforce the law even-handedly with the threat of lawsuits from private citizens hanging over their heads.
Racial profiling is a pretext to prevent an increase in deportations. I can tell this is true, because the revised bill better clairfies when an officer can ask someone for identification and it also improves the anti-racial profiling text, yet the outrage hasn't died down. The outrage hasn't died down, because racial profiling isn't the real issue.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 30, 2010, 03:04:38 PM
Other then drug cartels, illegal immigrants don't come to the US to commit murder. Although if illegal immigrants were unable to stay in the country, because the law is being enforced, then they would not try to come here illegally in the first place. If illegal immigrants were not invading the southern border, then people like Robert Krentz wouldn't have to die.[...]
Again, I must say that you are being biased. It's not proven that the person who killed Robert Krentz was an illegal immigrant. The article you quoted also refers drug cartels. In fact, since this crime was committed with a fire weapon, my opinion is that it's more likely that someone belonging to a drug cartel committed, not necessarily an illegal immigrant. But hey, I might be biased too! However, it's interesting to read what you wrote in the beginning of the above quote.
Having read a bit more about the bill, my opinion about it got worse. It seems to me that this bill will open the door to more discrimination. Furthermore, I don't see a necessity for it's existence, because it either covers what was already covered by the existing regulations, or it extends the coverage to points beyond what is reasonable. I think it's abusive what's written in "Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification" (starting on page 3, line 33), in particular in B.
Quote from: im2smart4u on May 04, 2010, 06:57:02 PMRacial profiling is a pretext to prevent an increase in deportations. I can tell this is true, because the revised bill better clairfies when an officer can ask someone for identification and it also improves the anti-racial profiling text, yet the outrage hasn't died down. The outrage hasn't died down, because racial profiling isn't the real issue.
Let's look at the bill again. On one hand, this bill adds no protections against racial profiling that do not already exist under the Constitution. On the other hand, it forces state police to enforce federal immigration law (which they otherwise would have no obligation to do), requires them to enforce the law as strictly as possible, and allows private citizens standing to sue the police if they do not enforce the law as strictly as possible.
You might find this bill's safeguards against racial profiling adequate, but that doesn't mean that other people aren't honestly concerned about the bill's potential effects.
Quote from: CraigStern on May 04, 2010, 07:53:30 PMLet's look at the bill again. On one hand, this bill adds no protections against racial profiling that do not already exist under the Constitution. On the other hand, it forces state police to enforce federal immigration law (which they otherwise would have no obligation to do), requires them to enforce the law as strictly as possible, and allows private citizens standing to sue the police if they do not enforce the law as strictly as possible.
You might find this bill's safeguards against racial profiling adequate, but that doesn't mean that other people aren't honestly concerned about the bill's potential effects.
If the federal government won't enforce the law and protect its people, then why is it wrong for state law enforcement to do it for them? In safe-haven cities like Tucosn and Phoenix, the mayors tell law enforcement officers to let unlicense drivers(likely illegal immgrants) go. To make sure those cops enforce the law, the citizens need to be able to sue law enforcenment for not doing their jobs.
The accustions of racial profiling are a distraction of the real issue people have with the bill.
Is it wrong to punish illegal immigrants for breaking the law because they have good intentions?
For breaking the law, should illegal immigrants continue to be rewarded with free health care and education without paying taxes?
Should we continue to allow illegal immigrants to steal jobs when so many Americans are unemployed?
Those are some pretty loaded questions there. Not to mention, some pretty bold accusations, seemingly based solely on your opinion of what you think other people think (which is, as I said, quite bold). Honestly, I do think that any bill that attempts to deal with immigration is a step in the right direction (regardless of which direction you decide to go in). I think the law will likely be used by some to harass those of certain races. That's the world that we live in. I also think that it would help with getting people off their collective arses on the immigration issue (and hopefully not drive people further into an angry standoff). I can see the positives of deportation and amnesty. Surely either would have a better effect than staying forever deadlocked in indecision on the issue. I'm not a big fan of the ability to sue police officers for using their own judgment, when it is a bit too forgiving for another citizens taste. There are already too many frivolous law suits in this country. Some of the ones this will allow may be well founded, but for each of them there are likely to be two that are brought about by greedy or lazy pricks.
Of course that's just my personal feeling on a cursory glance of an old-ish issue.
If this law was in effect during 2001 in Florida, then September 11th ringleader Mohamed Atta (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a070501attaspeeding) would have been arested for being in the country illegally. Since he was an unlicensed driver, the cop would have found out that the future-terrorist has an expired visa and the cop would have turned him over to the federal government. Unfortunately this senario didn't happen and many suffered for it.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
-George Santayana
I am curiose to know how many anti-immigration enforcement people have read the bill. One of the leaders against Arizona's bill, Attorney General Eric Holder (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Holder_hasnt_read_Ariz_immigration_bill.html) hasn't even read the bill, yet he strongly opposes. The left opposes the bill because they perfer open-border/amnesty immigration policies that increase the number of Democrat voters.
Honestly, I would be rather surprised if the Arizona bill didn't increase (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-gop-worries-it-may-hurt-party-politico.html) the number of Democratic voters. ;)
Quote from: CraigStern on June 04, 2010, 12:03:37 AM
Honestly, I would be rather surprised if the Arizona bill didn't increase (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-gop-worries-it-may-hurt-party-politico.html) the number of Democratic voters. ;)
The article thinks to long term, when things change in a generation. Almost all African Americans vote for Democrats when Democrats are the party that created the Jim Crow Laws, while Republicans are the party that freed the slaves.
I am not running for office, so I only care about people following the law. Democrats don't
really think the law is immoral, they think it is the wrong direction to go. They perfer the open-border/amnesty direction. To me, amnesty for illegal immigration is like giving free cars to carjackers.
Well sure, things change, but they don't just change for no reason--not that dramatically. When Lyndon Johnson got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed through Congress, he did so over the objections of a few conservative southern Democrats and a unified Republican opposition. In 1968, Richard Nixon took advantage of the backlash among southern whites with what came to be called the Southern Strategy. Black voters noticed (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DF1E30F935A35753C1A9639C8B63). So they came to support Democratic candidates overwhelmingly.
Alienating Hispanic voters isn't a wise move for the GOP, IMHO.
If upholding the law alienates Hispanic voters, then I am ok with it. It is immoral to allow people to break the law to win votes. Some Democrats want to go a step further and reward lawbreakers with citizenship to win votes.
The Obama administration is using tax payer dollars to sue the state of Arizona for their leftist ideology. They claim the lawsuit is to withhold the Constitution and to prevent racial profiling, but they released a statement that proves otherwise.
Quote from: Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. HolderThere is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law
The Obama administration doesn't want the 'rule of law' enforced at all. They are unwilling to enforce federal law and they don't want Arizona or anyone else enforceing the federal law either.
Read for yourself (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/)
I think that this law lis a load of bull( pardon my french) it means that they can stop you if you look mexican, and yhat is an extreme human rights violation not no mentionn that is supports racist tendencies if this law were any worse it would make the klukluxklan the government.
If you read the law, then you would know that the law forbids racial profiling even though the Supreme Court says racial profilling is a tool that law enforcement is allowed to use. The law doesn't give cops the power to pull over people because of the way they look. They can only pull a person over for a driving violation. How is deporting illegal immigrants a civil right violation?
it's not, but profiling people based on looks is a right violation. Potentially, they could find loopholes to profile anybody swarthy.
Quote from: namelesskitty on July 29, 2010, 04:46:33 PM
it's not, but profiling people based on looks is a right violation. Potentially, they could find loopholes to profile anybody swarthy.
Even without this bill, a cop can pull someone over because of their race. With or without this law, there will be raciest in this country. When someone is pulled over and they show thier license, then there is nothing new the cop can do under this law. There isn't any civil right violations. The opponents of the bill don't want the federal law enforced by anyone and they use "civil rights" as a pretext to prevent deportations.
I would agree, but this also gives pretext for cops to pull people over even more, and actually, it lessens the amount of actual fairness in the way of deportation.
Cops profile teenagers all the time. When I get pulled over, they look for signs of drugs and when they don't see any, then I leave. It is not a big deal to be pulled over unless you are breaking the law.
What does "it lessens the amount of actual fairness in the way of deportation" mean?
You, leave? Are you looking for drugs? :D
But really there is a loophole in which, a citizen who is swarthy and has no ID with them could be detained and in extreme cases arrested and sentenced to an unfair sentence, even in in the case of a first offense as opposed to being sent to traffic court.
No, I am not looking for drugs. I just fit the profile.
You are already required to have a license to drive. If not, they run your name through the system. If your name isn't in the system, then they make a call to ICE. After all that, how many Americans do you think will be deported? My guess is none.
Possibly, but there have been mixups in the system, I was oficcially dead for three weeks for absolutely no reason except that somebody with a similar name died.
Quote from: namelesskitty on July 31, 2010, 08:42:52 AM
Possibly, but there have been mixups in the system, I was oficcially dead for three weeks for absolutely no reason except that somebody with a similar name died.
So we shouldn't arrest anyone, because there is a very small chance an arrest warrant might have the same name as you? If you speak in hypotheticals, then anything can happen. The basis of your argument is faulty at best.
may be, but I know people who have had similar experiences, it seems to be a common occurrence.
Quote from: The Holy namelesskitty on August 02, 2010, 07:31:13 PM
may be, but I know people who have had similar experiences, it seems to be a common occurrence.
You really think cops shouldn't enfoce the law, because there is an extremely small chance that an errow could occur.
no, just that the law/ bill should be ammended to account for that.
There can be errors in enforcing any law. That doesn't mean that laws shouldn't be enforced.
People are not machines and can makes mistakes in anything we do. Should doctors not treat patients, because there is a chance they mess up?
that's a very different situation, and if there is any significant chance of harm doctors don't treat their patients, and in this case of the law there is significant risk to enforcing it. an amendment would make it good enough for me.
Quote from: The Holy namelesskitty on August 03, 2010, 08:44:10 AMan amendment would make it good enough for me.
An amendment for what? An amendment that guarantees people won't make mistakes?
no, one that just accounts for their correction.
How the law is enforced deals more with policy, then legislature.
I suppose so... I'll see if I can find a place to work into it what I think that the amendment should be, then I might post it.