Frazzled wrote:Now we will have twenty posts by people who don't live in a border state, or even this country, to tell us how evil we are.

SilverMK2 wrote:Any chance of a summation of what the law says for those of us who are behind work filters and thus can't go and find it?

Frazzled wrote:Now we will have twenty posts by people who don't live in a border state, or even this country, to tell us how evil we are.

Americans are always evil, no matter where you live. They invented daytime TV, the most evil thing in the world

SilverMK2 wrote:Any chance of a summation of what the law says for those of us who are behind work filters and thus can't go and find it?

The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for anyone to be unable to prove lawful residence in the United States upon being asked to provide such proof pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code,[8] and requires police to make a reasonable attempt, when practical, to determine immigration status if there is cause to suspect they are illegal immigrants.[9] Only when making lawful contact, anyone who appears to be an illegal alien upon reasonable suspicion and fails to produce such proof is subject to arrest without warrant,[8] and, upon confirmation of the individual's illegal status by the federal government, a fine of at least $500, and up to six months in jail.[10] A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[8] SB1070 also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.[8][11]

In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status,[12] will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if less than 10 illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if 10 or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.[12]

Arizona is the first state with such a law.[13] Prior law in Arizona, and the law in most other states, does not mandate that law enforcement personnel ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments discourage such inquiries for fear that immigrants will not report crimes or cooperate in other investigations.[7]

hcordes wrote:So basically its like "random selection" at the Airport after 9-11... when everyone that was randomly selected is/was or looked middle eastern. So now this is anyone who looks mexican get pulled over and needs to show a green card.

im fine with it.

how else are they gonna check? they should have random check points, like they do for DUI's.

Frazzled wrote:

hcordes wrote:So basically its like "random selection" at the Airport after 9-11... when everyone that was randomly selected is/was or looked middle eastern. So now this is anyone who looks mexican get pulled over and needs to show a green card.

im fine with it.

how else are they gonna check? they should have random check points, like they do for DUI's.

Its basically like that except its completely not. They have to have a minimum level of suspicion to stop you. Airport random checks were random. I saw them counting to 20.

SilverMK2 wrote:That's strange. It seems to suggest that if you are from overseas and have an American visa in your passport (say) you can still be arrested, fined and jailed if you don't have ID issued in the state saying that you live/belong in Arizona, or ID issued by the American Government

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hcordes wrote:So basically its like "random selection" at the Airport after 9-11... when everyone that was randomly selected is/was or looked middle eastern. So now this is anyone who looks mexican get pulled over and needs to show a green card.

im fine with it.

how else are they gonna check? they should have random check points, like they do for DUI's.

Its basically like that except its completely not. They have to have a minimum level of suspicion to stop you. Airport random checks were random. I saw them counting to 20.

Oh please. The "minimum level of suspicion" here is "Hey, he looks Latino. GET 'IM!"

Frazzled wrote:A visa would be a valid document. Its issued by the American Government.

Frazzled wrote:
Yep. Same level of suspicion they can stop anyone for.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:A visa would be a valid document. Its issued by the American Government.

"any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification"

A visa is not a form of identification as far as I am aware. The identification would be your passport (in my case issued by the British Government, not the United States of America) in which the visa stamp resides.

mattyrm wrote:So Kanlu you are against it then?

My point is, i can see its a bit harsh, but what else can you do?

If a 5 foot 9 hairy guy with a Middlesbrough accent blew up a bus or something, then id expect to get pulled over. I would deal with it, if i havent done anything, then ive nothing to fear.

If you are legally in Arizona, then its no big deal showing them. If i was there on holiday and a copper asked to see some ID i know id say "sure mate!" give him my passport and say "Aye im on holiday" and it wouldnt be a problem.

I think its a tad harsh too, but what else is the solution? As i said, it seems a pretty sensible thing to do if you ask me.

Frazzled wrote:You'd still have a passport no?

pombe wrote:I'm quite the liberal, and I do not endorse racial profiling of any sort...but I do agree that we have to start taking some sort of measure against illegal immigrants.

1) Economically speaking, they cost Americans billions of dollars every year from emergency room visits and unpaid taxes.

2) From a social justice point of view, there are thousands of people who are patiently waiting through legal channels to enter this country, and allowing illegal immigrants to enter this country (or even more extreme, granting those already here amnesty) is grossly unfair.

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I'm not on the frontline of the war against Mexico.

Must've missed that memo, what with having large amounts of illegal immigrants in NC coming from Central America.

Kanluwen wrote:
When dealing with drug networks, you don't arrest and hold the low level street vendors like Joe the Spoon for any real length of time(unless he's caught with a metric buttload of hard drugs). You get them to roll over on their bosses and move your way towards the big fish.

Same principle should apply here.

hcordes wrote:The biggest problem in this country is no one wants to see the bigger picture, everyone wants to get on their soap box and preach. There are too many party lines, too many agendas, too much 'racism', no one that wants to do the hard work.

I get it says reasonable whatever, but truth be told, Anything out there gets thrown into racial profiling just because the officer or the people behind the politics are 'white'.

I have to card everyone in a group of people that goes into the liquor section at work, that's company policy in conjunction with state law that says its illegal to purchase liquor for a minor. I had three African Americans bring up a bottle of booze, i asked for everyone's ID, and then the smart-a** dude says 'Why? Cuz I'm black?'
I look and say "no... why would you ask that? is that cuz I'm white?"

my point..... no matter what it is, there will always be accusations of "profiling" people need to get over themselves and realize that there are bigger issues in this country other than who's rights MIGHT be getting violated by something that is protecting ACTUAL US CITIZENS.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You'd still have a passport no?

Yes, but as I said, it is not "any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification", it is identification issued by the redcoats. In which there is a visa stamp, which in itself is not ID, nor does it grant me any guaranteed rights to enter or remain the US.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I'm not on the frontline of the war against Mexico.

Must've missed that memo, what with having large amounts of illegal immigrants in NC coming from Central America.

yea you did. The Mexican army is flying helicopters over into NC airspace and battling it out with the cartels. NC doesn't have the kidnapping record this year related to cartel/drugs.

Kanluwen wrote:
So rather than wasting tax dollars arresting them--go after the people hiring them as a cheap labor force.

When dealing with drug networks, you don't arrest and hold the low level street vendors like Joe the Spoon for any real length of time(unless he's caught with a metric buttload of hard drugs). You get them to roll over on their bosses and move your way towards the big fish.

Same principle should apply here.

pombe wrote:
I don't disagree with you.

But (as someone who's not familiar with all the politics behind illegal immigration), my guess is that it's not politically viable to go after these employers, which is why they had to go after the immigrants themselves.

The Big Fish Drug guys are political bad guys...things that the politicians can sell to voters as boogie men. The Big Illegal Immigrant Employer might not be in such an easy position to go after.

Kanluwen wrote:
So rather than wasting tax dollars arresting them--go after the people hiring them as a cheap labor force.
.

mattyrm wrote:
If a 5 foot 9 hairy guy with a Middlesbrough accent blew up a bus or something, then id expect to get pulled over. I would deal with it, if i havent done anything, then ive nothing to fear.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I'm not on the frontline of the war against Mexico.

Must've missed that memo, what with having large amounts of illegal immigrants in NC coming from Central America.

yea you did. The Mexican army is flying helicopters over into NC airspace and battling it out with the cartels. NC doesn't have the kidnapping record this year related to cartel/drugs.

And since bloody when are they flying over Texas or Arizona?

Get over yourselves border states.

Kanluwen wrote:To individuals.

That means the people transporting them over the border(the coyotes/drivers) and any individuals offering them shelter.

It says nothing about companies, now does it?

hcordes wrote:
When my wife was in the Hospital having our baby girl, the nurse mentioned something about how they have to let illegal mothers give birth, and the tax payers pick up the bill?? Then because they have thier kid on US soil, the kid of course is a citizen then the mother gets to have a visa because she has to take care of her child... for free?? well not for free.... Joe American like me, tax payer, 40hr work week has to pay for it.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I'm not on the frontline of the war against Mexico.

Must've missed that memo, what with having large amounts of illegal immigrants in NC coming from Central America.

yea you did. The Mexican army is flying helicopters over into NC airspace and battling it out with the cartels. NC doesn't have the kidnapping record this year related to cartel/drugs.

And since bloody when are they flying over Texas or Arizona?

Get over yourselves border states.

Maybe you should read up on current events before you type?
http://current.com/news-and-politics/89475866_mexican-army-soldiers-captured-in-yuma-arizona.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fViOuhkhejc

I'd be down with the federal government controlling the border. That's their freaking job. But they will not do it-too many special interests are providing campaign contributions to inure the border is kept open.

Frazzled wrote:
Maybe you should read up on current events before you type?
http://current.com/news-and-politics/89475866_mexican-army-soldiers-captured-in-yuma-arizona.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fViOuhkhejc

I'd be down with the federal government controlling the border. Thats their freeking job. But they will not do it-too many special interests are providing campaign contributions to inure the border is kept open.

hcordes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:To individuals.

That means the people transporting them over the border(the coyotes/drivers) and any individuals offering them shelter.

It says nothing about companies, now does it?

Well if I have a company truck and I pick up a bunch of illegals at the local home depot, and get pulled over, you think they would just stop at me? it would carry over into the company... because they would have to ask "is it company policy to hire illegals?" and then they would end up investigating the company.

I just asked my Oakland PD friend, and he says this is way it was explained to him. But he is not entirely sure since he works in CA not AZ

ShivanAngel wrote:

hcordes wrote:
When my wife was in the Hospital having our baby girl, the nurse mentioned something about how they have to let illegal mothers give birth, and the tax payers pick up the bill?? Then because they have thier kid on US soil, the kid of course is a citizen then the mother gets to have a visa because she has to take care of her child... for free?? well not for free.... Joe American like me, tax payer, 40hr work week has to pay for it.

This 100000000000000x. I live in Texas and am a registered nurse. It really pisses me off that a 21 year old mexican, having her fourth kid cause she cant keep her legs shut, is surviving on WIC and food stamps, only because she made it over the border before gaking out her kid. They also get medicaid because their kids a citizen. Guess who gets the to foot that medical bill.... Yup the hospital and the taxpayers...

In my opinion Arizona is setting a great precedent, and honestly I would like to see harsher penalties for being here illegally. Lets start putting up those signs on the border fences that shows the little dude crossing the fence getting shot.

Kanluwen wrote:
Depends on the company

If you're some small-time company owned by a private backer: You're fethed.

If you're Wal-Mart, you get the smile and nod to keep on trucking to provide Fox News' viewer base with more lard to sit on!

agnosto wrote:
Dude, have you even been to Yuma? It's more Mexican than American, no matter what the map says....more so than Brownsville.

The only thing I'd be concerned about is some poor schmuck leaves his house without his ID to walk down to the corner store and buy a candy bar then gets picked up by a cop on a mission from gawd to nail all dem der illegalz to the wall. Said poor schmuck looks brown, doesn't have ID on him and then finds himself in Juarez with $5 and no way to get back home.

http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.com/2009/04/us-kidnaps-mark-lyttle-leaves-him.html

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-07-27/news/17218849_1_judy-rabinovitz-immigration-laws-illegal-immigrant

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/01/24/25392/immigration-officials-detaining.html

My point is, if the feds screw up so much and deport US citizens, when local yokels have the ability, it's going to be much, much worse.

hcordes wrote:the only logical step is to just buy out Mexico, and chop it up into a couple more states, and have done with it, how does that joke go?

everyone that can run and swim or whatever?

then no more illegal mexican problem... then all we have to worry about are those darn Canadians.

agnosto wrote:

Dude, have you even been to Yuma? It's more Mexican than American, no matter what the map says....more so than Brownsville.

Kilkrazy wrote:The law sounds like our Suss law of the 70s, which was repealed in the 80s because it caused too many riots, and was brought back under guise of Terrorism legislation in the 2000s.

Basically it allows the police to stop and search people on suspicion.

The problem with the law was that it was disproportionately used against black people, who not unnaturally saw that as evidence of racism on the part of the police.

I imagine Arizona and other border states probably have a high proportion of legal Mexican-American residents, who are going to be on the receiving end of the big stick as much as any illegals.

BTW there is a similar law in Japan which allows the police to stop and ask any foreigner they like for his passport or Alien Registration Card which must be carried at all times.

The Japanese have the advantage that they can easily pick on non-Japanese looking people suspecting them to be foreign. However they also pick on non-Japanese looking Japanese people (naturalised citizens) who are not obliged by law to carry ID, and this can cause friction.

Soladrin wrote:So... if i got this right.... white people can't be immigrants or something?XD

hcordes wrote:

Soladrin wrote:So... if i got this right.... white people can't be immigrants or something?XD

yes, the general reasoning is that white people do it legally. the problem here is that in *most* states with a LARGE illegal problem have an issue with Mexican immigrants, unfortunetly round here when someone says illegal immigrant most will automatically think of a mexican.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You left out the most famous illegal.

hcordes wrote:Of course Superman is a drain, you think he pays for building damage? Does he pay for medical bills of the people he may or may not accidently injure?? Besides him taking perfectly good superhero jobs from people born on THIS planet.

*note* all superheros are drains.. since no one knows who they are, no one gets a bills to pay for damage except Joe Taxpayer. */note*

jp400 wrote:I am all for this law.

If you are here legally, then you have nothing to worry about. How flipping hard is it to go "Here you go Officer, here is my drivers license/green card ect ect" and hand it over for 30 seconds??

Suck it up and drive on.

jp400 wrote:I have more faith in the local PD then I do the Feds.

jp400 wrote:I have more faith in the local PD then I do the Feds.

Frazzled wrote:I don't apologize. We did not create the mess that is Mexico. It was a mess since the Spanish were kicked out. Take your guilt somewhere else.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I don't apologize. We did not create the mess that is Mexico. It was a mess since the Spanish were kicked out. Take your guilt somewhere else.

Translation = Nuke Earth from Orbit... It is the only way to be sure.

Frazzled wrote:SFGate?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

jp400 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:SFGate?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Agreed.

Then again, what do I know about problems with Illegals... oh wait.... I helped boarder patrol for 2 months in Texas and have seen first hand how big a problem it really is.

agnosto wrote:Yeah and the fact that I work for the government and deal with legal and illegal immigrants on a daily basis carries no merit...

Ahtman wrote:

Which government? There is more than one you know. In what capacity to you deal with said immigrants? Your statement is somewhat vague and needs clarification.

agnosto wrote:Yeah and the fact that I work for the government and deal with legal and illegal immigrants on a daily basis carries no merit...

Frazzled wrote:None to me. You're part of the problem.

Ahtman wrote:

agnosto wrote:Yeah and the fact that I work for the government and deal with legal and illegal immigrants on a daily basis carries no merit...

Which government? There is more than one you know. In what capacity to you deal with said immigrants? Your statement is somewhat vague and needs clarification.

Frazzled wrote:On the positive, mayhaps you partook of the perfection that is Tex-Mex.

jp400 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:SFGate?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Agreed.

Then again, what do I know about problems with Illegals... oh wait.... I helped boarder patrol for 2 months in Texas and have seen first hand how big a problem it really is.

pombe wrote:

Frazzled wrote:On the positive, mayhaps you partook of the perfection that is Tex-Mex.

I find Texas BBQ to be >>> than Tex-Mex.

Hmm...brisket...

Kanluwen wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:SFGate?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Agreed.

Then again, what do I know about problems with Illegals... oh wait.... I helped boarder patrol for 2 months in Texas and have seen first hand how big a problem it really is.

You expect us to believe you worked with an agency whose name you can't even spell?

What capacity were you "helping" them in? Because calling them to report someone as a suspected illegal != "helping".

jp400 wrote:

And here is some proof that I do know what I am talking about. As said I have come face to face with the said problem.

jp400 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:SFGate?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Agreed.

Then again, what do I know about problems with Illegals... oh wait.... I helped boarder patrol for 2 months in Texas and have seen first hand how big a problem it really is.

You expect us to believe you worked with an agency whose name you can't even spell?

What capacity were you "helping" them in? Because calling them to report someone as a suspected illegal != "helping".

Please, if you can't think of anything to argue and have to resort to becomming a grammar nazi, then I suggest you move along for there is nothing to see here.

agnosto wrote:
Should I scan my degree and certificates for you? My word carries just as much weight in a discussion on the topic matter as yours. You spent a week doing something and I've spent years working within the community. Congrats.

Kanluwen wrote:The point is:
This law is ENTIRELY ridiculous. It's racial profiling at its very core.

You want to do something about illegal immigration?

Then put the companies making it lucrative to bring illegal immigrants across the border into your crosshairs.

Proudly displayed, in the second paragraph, "in defeating and elusive, narco-terrorist". You'd think they could edit something if they wanted to be taken seriously...

Should I scan my degree and certificates for you? My word carries just as much weight in a discussion on the topic matter as yours. You spent a week doing something and I've spent years working within the community. Congrats.

jp400 wrote:

And if they would have made me run around in the old school blues, you would have seen me naked greeting boarder jumpers.

Frazzled wrote:

jp400 wrote:

And if they would have made me run around in the old school blues, you would have seen me naked greeting boarder jumpers.

Well that might have actually worked. It'd scare me.

agnosto wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The law sounds like our Suss law of the 70s, which was repealed in the 80s because it caused too many riots, and was brought back under guise of Terrorism legislation in the 2000s.

Basically it allows the police to stop and search people on suspicion.

The problem with the law was that it was disproportionately used against black people, who not unnaturally saw that as evidence of racism on the part of the police.

I imagine Arizona and other border states probably have a high proportion of legal Mexican-American residents, who are going to be on the receiving end of the big stick as much as any illegals.

BTW there is a similar law in Japan which allows the police to stop and ask any foreigner they like for his passport or Alien Registration Card which must be carried at all times.

The Japanese have the advantage that they can easily pick on non-Japanese looking people suspecting them to be foreign. However they also pick on non-Japanese looking Japanese people (naturalised citizens) who are not obliged by law to carry ID, and this can cause friction.

We already have probable cause laws that allow police to detain and question if they have even the slightest evidence of wrong-doing (i.e., speeding violation) this is what you see on the show "Cops" when the officer pulls a car over for speeding to some other traffic infraction then finds drugs or something.

The whole time I lived in Asia, I was never once asked for ID except when entering a country. In fact, I was lost in Tokyo (I forget which ward) and a police officer walked away from me when I asked him, in my terrible Japanese, where the train station was. LOL. Ah, memories. That's not to say, they are lax; to the contrary, when I first entered the country, I was detained in Narita airport because my visa document had some writing on it that some twit at the dispatch service I was going to work for had scribbled on it. They checked my story and contacted the service then let me go after I wrote an apology and spoke with some official. Quite a surreal experience.

I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon.

Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

You would have to be a very lame kind of illegal immigrant to get into the country through the airport Immigration and then get caught outside the terminal building.

Kilkrazy wrote:
It makes me wonder how suspicious I look -- white, middle-class, middle-aged, sitting at the coach station next to a smart suitcase with airline tags on it, drinking a Diet Coke while looking tired, jet-lagged and fanning my face with a coach ticket.

I suspect actually they pick on me because I look so "straight" I am sure to be an easy tick on their "Question 50 suspects a day" form.

helgrenze wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It makes me wonder how suspicious I look -- white, middle-class, middle-aged, sitting at the coach station next to a smart suitcase with airline tags on it, drinking a Diet Coke while looking tired, jet-lagged and fanning my face with a coach ticket.

I suspect actually they pick on me because I look so "straight" I am sure to be an easy tick on their "Question 50 suspects a day" form.

The Diet Coke is a dead give away. No-one actually drinks that.

Frazzled wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It makes me wonder how suspicious I look -- white, middle-class, middle-aged, sitting at the coach station next to a smart suitcase with airline tags on it, drinking a Diet Coke while looking tired, jet-lagged and fanning my face with a coach ticket.

I suspect actually they pick on me because I look so "straight" I am sure to be an easy tick on their "Question 50 suspects a day" form.

The Diet Coke is a dead give away. No-one actually drinks that.

Only Alqaeda moles. Its how we spot them. Actually there is no such thing as Diet Coke. Its all a clever ploy.

Frazzled wrote:And one from the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703465204575208382473306238.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

...

...Arizona's police chiefs association opposed the new law. Local enforcement agencies don't want responsibility for enforcing national immigration laws because they say it makes them less effective at their day jobs. When people in immigrant communities see the local police as deportation agents, they become less likely to report crimes and help in investigations. Conditions worsen.

Restrictionists insist, with some justification, that these laws are shrinking the illegal population. The larger reality is that border crossings track the economy. The recent downturn has meant fewer illegal entries and more immigrants going home. Before the law, Arizona's illegal population had fallen 18% in the past year.

Congressional Democrats have no intention of enacting serious immigration reform before November. President Obama is surely playing politics with the situation in Arizona for gain in the fall. He'd like to pick a fight and define Republicans as anti-Hispanic going into the election, without having to propose anything substantive.

We'd support a national immigration reform that was realistic about the fact that most of these are economic migrants who will find a way to come here in any case if this is where the jobs are. The most effective way to reduce illegal entries and defuse these tensions is to expand legal channels, including guest worker programs. This would reduce illegal immigration and free up security resources to threats from drug gangs and the like.

But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona's.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And one from the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703465204575208382473306238.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Reading it currently, and as I expected, it is referring to the fact that this new law is a direct reaction to the lack of federal intervention. I fully assume that the point of this new law, was actually to to get the feds to do something, not for the state to address the problem; hence the rather loud method of getting this law passed.

...

...Arizona's police chiefs association opposed the new law. Local enforcement agencies don't want responsibility for enforcing national immigration laws because they say it makes them less effective at their day jobs. When people in immigrant communities see the local police as deportation agents, they become less likely to report crimes and help in investigations. Conditions worsen.

Restrictionists insist, with some justification, that these laws are shrinking the illegal population. The larger reality is that border crossings track the economy. The recent downturn has meant fewer illegal entries and more immigrants going home. Before the law, Arizona's illegal population had fallen 18% in the past year.

Congressional Democrats have no intention of enacting serious immigration reform before November. President Obama is surely playing politics with the situation in Arizona for gain in the fall. He'd like to pick a fight and define Republicans as anti-Hispanic going into the election, without having to propose anything substantive.

We'd support a national immigration reform that was realistic about the fact that most of these are economic migrants who will find a way to come here in any case if this is where the jobs are. The most effective way to reduce illegal entries and defuse these tensions is to expand legal channels, including guest worker programs. This would reduce illegal immigration and free up security resources to threats from drug gangs and the like.

But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona's.

A tactical application of pressure, being used to be able to ask the question... "What exactly are you going to do about it instead? It is YOUR job, we are just trying to protect our state."

Kanluwen wrote: "Help us take down Wal-Mart, which provides you low low prices by being one of the largest employers of illegal immigrants in the country".

jp400 wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Should I scan my degree and certificates for you? My word carries just as much weight in a discussion on the topic matter as yours. You spent a week doing something and I've spent years working within the community. Congrats.

Oh I didn't know that you were Operations Command during that timeframe. A week you say...

From the sound of things, I bet you have spent years behind a desk.

Frazzled wrote:

Proudly displayed, in the second paragraph, "in defeating and elusive, narco-terrorist". You'd think they could edit something if they wanted to be taken seriously...

Should I scan my degree and certificates for you? My word carries just as much weight in a discussion on the topic matter as yours. You spent a week doing something and I've spent years working within the community. Congrats.

Correction, you say you have.

But lets take you at your word. You work in the, er federal government no? The same federal government that's stood by and allow this to happen (under both Dem and Rep governments)? If so you have unclean hands in this matter.

Kilkrazy wrote:Well I usually have a Melon Soda but I thought you Americans would find it easier to understand Diet Coke.

SB1070 also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.[8][11]

Frazzled wrote:except you have a vested interest in the status quo. I don't. The staus quo needs to end.

agnosto wrote: Yeah and the fact that I work for the government and deal with legal and illegal immigrants on a daily basis carries no merit...

Frazzled wrote:None to me. You're part of the problem.

SilverMK2 wrote:For a nation which was essentially founded by a bunch of immigrants killing off the native population and taking all their stuff, a few Mexicans doing low paid jobs that no one else wants to do for virtually no money really doesn't seem all that bad to me

[/taking the wee rather than making a serious point]

Frazzled wrote:except you have a vested interest in the status quo. I don't. The staus quo needs to end.

Frazzled wrote:And if the illegal aliens were suddenly gone where would you be?

Frazzled wrote:And if the illegal aliens were suddenly gone where would you be?

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:For a nation which was essentially founded by a bunch of immigrants killing off the native population and taking all their stuff, a few Mexicans doing low paid jobs that no one else wants to do for virtually no money really doesn't seem all that bad to me

[/taking the wee rather than making a serious point]

Sophistry. Do you have an open border? How about we let all the refugees from Africa come live there, including the Somali khat eating pirates and technicals?

agnosto wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And if the illegal aliens were suddenly gone where would you be?

Actually, I'd have more work, not less because then they wouldn't be hiding.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And if the illegal aliens were suddenly gone where would you be?

Paying for the increased cost of goods and services with everyone else.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:For a nation which was essentially founded by a bunch of immigrants killing off the native population and taking all their stuff, a few Mexicans doing low paid jobs that no one else wants to do for virtually no money really doesn't seem all that bad to me

[/taking the wee rather than making a serious point]

Sophistry. Do you have an open border? How about we let all the refugees from Africa come live there, including the Somali khat eating pirates and technicals?

He said it was sophistry in his post. Additionally, your rebuttal is sophistry, as are the majority of your attempts at argument in this thread.

Unlike North Carolina you're pushing majority hispanic in Arizona. it wold require more that, ala speaking Spanish, waiting at a known day labor position, working at McDonalds, that sort of thing.

gregor_xenos wrote:

Unlike North Carolina you're pushing majority hispanic in Arizona. it wold require more that, ala speaking Spanish, waiting at a known day labor position, working at McDonalds, that sort of thing.

Been to NC lately?

ShivanAngel wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And if the illegal aliens were suddenly gone where would you be?

Paying for the increased cost of goods and services with everyone else.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:For a nation which was essentially founded by a bunch of immigrants killing off the native population and taking all their stuff, a few Mexicans doing low paid jobs that no one else wants to do for virtually no money really doesn't seem all that bad to me

[/taking the wee rather than making a serious point]

Sophistry. Do you have an open border? How about we let all the refugees from Africa come live there, including the Somali khat eating pirates and technicals?

He said it was sophistry in his post. Additionally, your rebuttal is sophistry, as are the majority of your attempts at argument in this thread.

Even though i agree with something being done about the illegals....

Id love to see how many of the " THEY DERK DER DERBS" people would actually get a job.... OR would they find another reason to complain.... I really dont get it, give me a newspaper and a day and by the end of it i bet you i will have some form of employment.

gregor_xenos wrote:

Unlike North Carolina you're pushing majority hispanic in Arizona. it wold require more that, ala speaking Spanish, waiting at a known day labor position, working at McDonalds, that sort of thing.

Been to NC lately?

agnosto wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
If they weren't here would you have a job?
If you did have a job how much money is being spent in your group on people who are criminally here, that could be spent on US citizens-the people that actually pay your salary?

Here or not, I'd have a job. Not too many citizens would be running out to do the work that qualifies people for the program I work for...at least no more than already do.

Frazzled wrote:
If they weren't here would you have a job?
If you did have a job how much money is being spent in your group on people who are criminally here, that could be spent on US citizens-the people that actually pay your salary?

The Green Git wrote:While I don't live in a border state, I do live in one with a significant immigrant population (Georgia) and I have experienced issues here first hand. Driving in Metro Atlanta in certain parts, Gwinnett county to be specific, has become fairly perilous. The chances of you facing an illegal alien without a drivers license let alone insurance is significant. The Gwinnett county blotter is filled daily with arrests made for traffic offenses and the story is the same one over and over... "Driving without a valid license" or "Driving without insurance" with the occasional "Providing False Identification" or "DUI" and "Hold for Immigration.

Don't take my word for it... check it out here:
http://www.gwinnettmugs.com/

The Arizona law doesn't seem to onerous to me. It appears to need some reason for requiring ID (lawful contact) and if I get pulled over, I have to provide ID. If it's good enough for me it's good enough for anyone else.

ShivanAngel wrote:

gregor_xenos wrote:

Unlike North Carolina you're pushing majority hispanic in Arizona. it wold require more that, ala speaking Spanish, waiting at a known day labor position, working at McDonalds, that sort of thing.

Been to NC lately?

Here in Texas knowing spanish will get you a job over someone who doesnt....

Gotta love it!

Kilkrazy wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

gregor_xenos wrote:

Unlike North Carolina you're pushing majority hispanic in Arizona. it wold require more that, ala speaking Spanish, waiting at a known day labor position, working at McDonalds, that sort of thing.

Been to NC lately?

Here in Texas knowing spanish will get you a job over someone who doesnt....

Gotta love it!

Do you think it is bad to know more than one language?

Commissar Molotov wrote:I don't like the new law because of the way it addresses the problem. Don't go after poor-ass Paco who's just trying to feed his wife and umpteen mee-llion kids back in Me-hee-co.

Nail the greedy scumbag employer who's putting Paco to work at four bucks an hour less than any American would agree to. Dry up the demand, and the supply will cease - and without having to shoot Paco as he tries to do his best by his family.

ShivanAngel wrote:
...I really dont get it, give me a newspaper and a day and by the end of it i bet you i will have some form of employment.

Kilkrazy wrote:The US has very tight border controls but they don't work when you have 2,000 miles of contiguous land border which allows people more or less to wander in through a desert.

And I agree with the point about accepting immigrants who will contribute to society and rejecting the chav scum. (It's just a pity we can't reject native born chav scum.)

Commissar Molotov wrote:I don't like the new law because of the way it addresses the problem. Don't go after poor-ass Paco who's just trying to feed his wife and umpteen mee-llion kids back in Me-hee-co.

Nail the greedy scumbag employer who's putting Paco to work at four bucks an hour less than any American would agree to. Dry up the demand, and the supply will cease - and without having to shoot Paco as he tries to do his best by his family.

Commissar Molotov wrote:I don't like the new law because of the way it addresses the problem. Don't go after poor-ass Paco who's just trying to feed his wife and umpteen mee-llion kids back in Me-hee-co.

Nail the greedy scumbag employer who's putting Paco to work at four bucks an hour less than any American would agree to. Dry up the demand, and the supply will cease - and without having to shoot Paco as he tries to do his best by his family.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Commissar Molotov wrote:I don't like the new law because of the way it addresses the problem. Don't go after poor-ass Paco who's just trying to feed his wife and umpteen mee-llion kids back in Me-hee-co.

Nail the greedy scumbag employer who's putting Paco to work at four bucks an hour less than any American would agree to. Dry up the demand, and the supply will cease - and without having to shoot Paco as he tries to do his best by his family.

The demand comes from Paris Hilton, Baroness Scotland, the chicken ranches, and a million suburban middle class families.

It's like the demand for recreational drugs. It won't go away.

Frazzled wrote:...properly close the border like every other freeking country on the globe that is a sovereign state...

Kilkrazy wrote:Well I usually have a Melon Soda

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think it is bad to know more than one language?

Kilkrazy wrote:Shiso is a kind of Japanese Basil.

endless wrote:Because... not your country, not your country, not your language, immigrants get out of Mexico, go back to Scotland or wherever...

According to Princeton political scientist Douglas Massey, the number of illegal immigrants dropped by 100,000 in Arizona over just the last year and has fallen from 12.6 million in 2008 to 10.8 million in 2009 countrywide, as the recession means fewer jobs for immigrants and U.S. citizens alike.

a population 111,211,789 in 2009, Mexico is the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world, the second-most populous country in Latin America after Portuguese-speaking Brazil, and the second in North America, after the United States.

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps you are white, middle-class, drive a good car and work in an office.

Kilkrazy wrote:One issue -- traffic offences -- is getting conflated with another issue -- illegal immigration. You surely won't argue that US citizens never drive without a licence.

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps you are white, middle-class, drive a good car and work in an office.

Two outta three ain't bad.

The Green Git wrote:
...so he doesn't get a license, buys a car with cash and drives illegally because he can't get the paperwork without blowing his status and getting deported.

The Green Git wrote:
So... Juan takes that low paying job that no one wants (except the 10%+ unemployed in the US currently)

The Green Git wrote:
So tell me again how illegal immigrants are not affecting the law abiding citizens of this country?

dogma wrote:

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps you are white, middle-class, drive a good car and work in an office.

Two outta three ain't bad.

Four criteria were presented.

sexiest_hero wrote:WHy is this law crap?

1. doesn't solve the issue of companies that hire illegals, like my father in law.

2.if you stop mexicans, they will just get replaced by east europe folks(see wal-mart.

3. Money wasted on jails and deportions for people who will come back anyways.

4.It just stinks of " I got pulled over becase I was driving a new car" profiling.

Make them legalise them so they have to pay taxes, and be paid fairly.

Why not give 2 year jail terms to anybody caught knowingly hiring illegals?

This law is bd because it won't solve anything and end up with lots of lawsuits as soon and a legal resident gets caught.

Go after companies that hire illegals.

Mistress of minis wrote:
The media likes showing the crowds of protestors- many of which were bussed her from LA.

Mistress of minis wrote:
When travelling to foreign countries you need a passport, supposed to have it with you at all times right? How on earth is this any different?

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
The media likes showing the crowds of protestors- many of which were bussed her from LA.

I'll vouch for this. I've paid for some of the "Si Se Puede" buses that move protesters around. Its a common protest technique.

Mistress of minis wrote:
When travelling to foreign countries you need a passport, supposed to have it with you at all times right? How on earth is this any different?

The US should have national identification laws, but that is a contentious issue vis a vis states rights, and national perceptions of privacy. It will happen eventually thought, most likely in an effort to control immigration.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Immigration laws are Federal mandated- to the constitutional level I believe- specifically to prevent 50 states from all having differing immigration laws.

Mistress of minis wrote:
The Partrot act actually went a long ways in establishing the first steps in National ID recognition.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Terrorism will be a bigger motivator than illegal immigration on this, but the lines on that are blurring as the border cartels are getting bolder and more violent (look at the shooting of US consulate workers and family a few weeks ago).

Mistress of minis wrote:
So, many people see this law as harsh, but its just exerting State authority to enforce Federal laws. This will either get the Federal government to act on the issue, or it gives local authorities the ability to do what is supposed to be done already.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Cops are jsut people- and they arent going to drive down the street looking for illegals or latinos just to harass them.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Do you know anyone that makes thier job more difficult than it has to be?

Mistress of minis wrote:
Yes, there are jerkoff cops out there, BUT, with almost every LE agency in Arizona making staff cuts- the problem children like those are the first to go. So, gather facts rather than parroting what some news anchor has been saying.

mattyrm wrote:So Kanlu you are against it then?

My point is, i can see its a bit harsh, but what else can you do?

hcordes wrote:When did Illegals from ANY COUNTRY, suddenly need to have all these rights? I agree if you can't come to this country and do it legally, you ARE NOT A CITIZEN of this country, and thus all the rights of a LEGAL CITIZEN should not be yours. Since you do not have any rights as an ILLEGAL ALIEN, then we should send you back to your country however we see fit.

And the issue is that there a whole lot of Latino people who are legal citizens who are now looking forward to a life of being stopped constantly to have their papers checked. The right to privacy was once a thing the US was quite proud to recognise, but now it seems that people are alright with government officials stopping people and demanding to see their ID. Of course, every citizen is well within his rights to refuse to show their ID, but if they do good old Sheriff Joe Arpaio tells us he’ll just arrest them for something else.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:I read about them capturing some Coyotes that had a couple of AKs, and RPK, and the Russian Drum fed Grenade launcher in the back of a car. That could've seriously ruined someone's day.


Must have been big time CoD fans.

jp400 wrote:I would like to hear this one.

And here is some proof that I do know what I am talking about. As said I have come face to face with the said problem.

Wrexasaur wrote:Is there actually any law forcing me to carry I.D. at all times?

Requiring a drivers license while driving a car, is not the same as walking down the street to a friends BBQ...

And the issue is that there a whole lot of Latino people who are legal citizens who are now looking forward to a life of being stopped constantly to have their papers checked. The right to privacy was once a thing the US was quite proud to recognise, but now it seems that people are alright with government officials stopping people and demanding to see their ID. Of course, every citizen is well within his rights to refuse to show their ID, but if they do good old Sheriff Joe Arpaio tells us he’ll just arrest them for something else.

This is my question, what would stop any cop from abusing this power? It really seems like an issue that should not be left in the hands of a standard police officer.

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:So Kanlu you are against it then?

My point is, i can see its a bit harsh, but what else can you do?

Crack down on the businesses that use mexican labour. Picking up illegal Mexicans and putting them back over the border will only see them make the trip again. Heavily fine the businesses that employ them and you'll see demand for Mexican labour drop incredibly. When the work dries up they'll stop coming across the border.


And the issue is that there a whole lot of Latino people who are legal citizens who are now looking forward to a life of being stopped constantly to have their papers checked. The right to privacy was once a thing the US was quite proud to recognise, but now it seems that people are alright with government officials stopping people and demanding to see their ID. Of course, every citizen is well within his rights to refuse to show their ID, but if they do good old Sheriff Joe Arpaio tells us he’ll just arrest them for something else.

This gak is fethed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hcordes wrote:When did Illegals from ANY COUNTRY, suddenly need to have all these rights? I agree if you can't come to this country and do it legally, you ARE NOT A CITIZEN of this country, and thus all the rights of a LEGAL CITIZEN should not be yours. Since you do not have any rights as an ILLEGAL ALIEN, then we should send you back to your country however we see fit.

The issue here is the rights of legal citizens not to be stopped and required and show their papers. Because there are a lot of legal, naturalised citizens in the US who's only issue is not being white.

Mistress of minis wrote:Laws apply to police officers too, they are under constant scrutiny and are more easily held accountable for questionable actions in the modern age of video cameras popping up everywhere.

Frazzled wrote:And if the illegal aliens were suddenly gone where would you be?

hcordes wrote:So basically its like "random selection" at the Airport after 9-11... when everyone that was randomly selected is/was or looked middle eastern. So now this is anyone who looks mexican get pulled over and needs to show a green card.

im fine with it.

how else are they gonna check? they should have random check points, like they do for DUI's.

sexiest_hero wrote:
2.if you stop mexicans, they will just get replaced by east europe folks(see wal-mart.

Go after companies that hire illegals.

Mistress of minis wrote:
You obviously lack a functional understanding of how the laws here work, let alone finding out what laws are already in effect. If youre being spoon fed what the media wants you to hear- comprehend that its only one perspective and often a biased one. Do some research, educate yourself on the specifics of an issue before acting like you have original ideas, that aren't.

Frazzled wrote:Better yet, do both.
better (er? ) yet, properly close the border like every other freeking country on the globe that is a sovereign state, and put the illegals here on a path to citizenship like legal immigrants. But if you commit a crime, you're outta here.

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
You obviously lack a functional understanding of how the laws here work, let alone finding out what laws are already in effect. If youre being spoon fed what the media wants you to hear- comprehend that its only one perspective and often a biased one. Do some research, educate yourself on the specifics of an issue before acting like you have original ideas, that aren't.

This is not a helpful retort. Had you wanted to provide one, you would have expounded upon the nature of 'legitimate contact' as that is the crux of the issue here.

Kilkrazy wrote:The demand comes from Paris Hilton, Baroness Scotland, the chicken ranches, and a million suburban middle class families.

It's like the demand for recreational drugs. It won't go away.

Wrexasaur wrote:

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
You obviously lack a functional understanding of how the laws here work, let alone finding out what laws are already in effect. If youre being spoon fed what the media wants you to hear- comprehend that its only one perspective and often a biased one. Do some research, educate yourself on the specifics of an issue before acting like you have original ideas, that aren't.

This is not a helpful retort. Had you wanted to provide one, you would have expounded upon the nature of 'legitimate contact' as that is the crux of the issue here.

How flexible is that term? Does it have established limitations? Or can an officer string together a reason for nearly every situation?

I have a lot of reading to do in order to actually understand all of this...

Main Entry: 1le·git·i·mate
Pronunciation: \li-ˈji-tə-mət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law
Date: 15th century
1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth
2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false
3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right
4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards
5 : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>

synonyms see lawful

Contact:
Main Entry: 1con·tact
Pronunciation: \ˈkän-ˌtakt\
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Latin; French, from Latin contactus, from contingere to have contact with — more at contingent
Date: 1626
1 a : union or junction of surfaces b : the apparent touching or mutual tangency of the limbs of two celestial bodies or of the disk of one body with the shadow of another during an eclipse, transit, or occultation c (1) : the junction of two electrical conductors through which a current passes (2) : a special part made for such a junction
2 a : association, relationship b : connection, communication c : an establishing of communication with someone or an observing or receiving of a significant signal from a person or object <radar contact with Mars>
3 : a person serving as a go-between, messenger, connection, or source of special information <business contacts>
4 : contact lens
(courtesy of Merriam-Webster online)

Mistress of minis wrote:You obviously lack a functional understanding of how the laws here work, let alone finding out what laws are already in effect. If youre being spoon fed what the media wants you to hear- comprehend that its only one perspective and often a biased one. Do some research, educate yourself on the specifics of an issue before acting like you have original ideas, that aren't.

sebster wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:You obviously lack a functional understanding of how the laws here work, let alone finding out what laws are already in effect. If youre being spoon fed what the media wants you to hear- comprehend that its only one perspective and often a biased one. Do some research, educate yourself on the specifics of an issue before acting like you have original ideas, that aren't.

And I could point out that given your earlier post of 'sure it might give police the ability to target legal minorities but that'd be hard work so they won't bother, and they're letting the nuisance cops go anyway' exhibits a ludicrous level of optimism.

But that wouldn't be particularly fair on my part, now would it? Despite that, it would be a point with actual content, something you failed to include in your response to me.

Mistress of minis wrote:I have to have a pasport in foreign countries, if I dont I risk arrest and being jailed for not following thier laws- why is this any different?

sebster wrote:Because many of the people stopped will be citizens. The effect is that natural citizens, if brown, will be required to carry ID on them.

Mistress of minis wrote:Your response does nothing to change the relevancy of my statement you quoted. Just as I have little understanding of Australian laws and legal structure, you seem to have little notion of how things work here. The difference between the two- you are assuming you do know and making comments about a subject you are demonstrating ignorance in. Whereas I leave legal matters of foreign countries alone unless I solve my ignorance with curiosity and educate myself upon the facts of a matter.

sebster wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Your response does nothing to change the relevancy of my statement you quoted. Just as I have little understanding of Australian laws and legal structure, you seem to have little notion of how things work here. The difference between the two- you are assuming you do know and making comments about a subject you are demonstrating ignorance in. Whereas I leave legal matters of foreign countries alone unless I solve my ignorance with curiosity and educate myself upon the facts of a matter.

I listened to a debate on Australian immigration policy a week or so ago (the problem itself is quite trivial but we most likely have greater problems with race than you do so the issue takes on all kinds of craziness here) and one of the speakers was an English gentleman. His background was in refugees and he had done extensive study of the Australian issue. He made a lot of interesting points as did the rest of the commentators, and while the English fellow was challenged on points he made it was always on the content of those points and not the fact that he just couldn't know because he didn't live here.

Now, I'm not saying I know as much on US immigration as that Englishman knew about Australian immigration policy. Far from it, I've read on the subject but mostly in the context of race relations (both sides - how race politics results simultaneously in harsher laws and ineffective enforcement) so on the technical issues of the law I'm quite willing to accept I might be in error.

I am saying that rejecting someone as being automatically wrong because they're from another country is a crap form of debate.

Mistress of minis wrote:OK, Im an Az resident, and have worked in law enforcement. So Im familiar with the legal issues in play here.

SB1070 is almost word for word the same as the Federal immigration laws. However given local concerns theres an added caveat about racial profiling to assure that civil rights are maintained.

The media likes showing the crowds of protestors- many of which were bussed her from LA.

For several months Sheriff Joe was enforcing immigration laws in Maricopa County, and ICE (ie the federal government) decided to stop him form doing that. It is totally ridiculous to say "Yes, it may be illegal, but sheriffs deputies and police officers cant enforce these federal laws, but no- we wont provide the needed personel to enforce them either"

This law does not stop or hinder LEGAL immigration in any way shape or form. All it does it let the everyday cops enforce the laws against people being in our country illegally. They will not be walking up to people in stores and demanding to see papers.

When I get pulled over I have to provide my ID, this is no different.

When travelling to foreign countries you need a passport, supposed to have it with you at all times right? How on earth is this any different?

Mistress of minis wrote:Legitimate contact- a simplified explanation: contact made while carrying out routine duties in adherance with Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training. To include detaining suspects of crimes in progress, interviewing witnesses, traffic stops, responding to citizen complaints. In short, just doing thier basic job.

So, its not a matter of skin color or nationality as the media would like people to believe. Its a matter of obeying all the regular laws.

Mistress of minis wrote:
I mean, if theres no drugs or repeat offenses involved, its a MISDEMEANOR.

Mistress of minis wrote:
And if somehow someone who is a citizen gets charged, it will be easily cleared up when they go to court. Theres still the trial process involved in this, and in the case of those who are legal citizens, or legal resident aliens, providing proper documents will clear up the situation.

Mistress of minis wrote:
I have to have a pasport in foreign countries, if I dont I risk arrest and being jailed for not following thier laws- why is this any different?

Fateweaver wrote:We should be "TFG" to Mexico so that the illegals will stop thinking we are such a great country and not want to come here.

Dainty Twerp wrote:and oh, well. Life is hard when you want to live in a civilized society, huh. You have to carry that near weightless tiny piece of plastic on you. And you if choose not to you might have to stand around while the police verify who you are over the radio or on a cruiser computer.

and if you are breaking the law, then you're going to have to answer for it.

sebster wrote:'Hello there, brown person.'
'Hello, officer'
'I've pulled your car over today because I noticed you were brown.'
'Heh, you got me there officer, I sure am brown.'
'As an individual of brown skin, I'm legally obligated to check you're not a illegal job stealing illegal.'
'Certainly officer.'
'Do you have any ID on you, brown person.'
'Here you go, officer.’
‘Thank you, brown person. You can be on your way.’
‘Go Cardinals.’
‘Go Cardinals.’

helgrenze wrote:sebster.... How about this scenario?

You are driving along minding your own, doing the speed limit, and sober at 2:30 am.
You come to a sobriety check-point.

You know you are sober. You have obeyed all traffic laws. The police at the check-point have no reason to make you stop, hand over your ID and Ins, or spot inspect your car.

Do you stop?

Mistress of minis wrote:Your country of origin isnt the issue I pointed out initially- merely something I used as an example of local familiarity as it related to the over all topic. Your statements proved you are not knowledgable or educated in the specifics on the laws at work and the situations that have made them necesarry here. And you're still not adhering to the topic- rather my method of pointing out observations. That too is a poor debating method

Mistress of minis wrote:And you're still not adhering to the topic- rather my method of pointing out observations. That too is a poor debating method

Dainty Twerp wrote:and there you show your lack of understanding of Terry vs. Ohio and how Police Officers can interact with the general public.

sebster wrote:

helgrenze wrote:sebster.... How about this scenario?

You are driving along minding your own, doing the speed limit, and sober at 2:30 am.
You come to a sobriety check-point.

You know you are sober. You have obeyed all traffic laws. The police at the check-point have no reason to make you stop, hand over your ID and Ins, or spot inspect your car.

Do you stop?

You don’t think it’s different when it targets a specific ethnic minority?

What if stats found that most drink driving incidents were done by white people, so the police set up a policy to only breathalyse white people? Do you think that would cause resentment among white folk?

Now consider how that might be exacerbated when you’re a minority.

Mistress of minis wrote:Legitimate contact- a simplified explanation: contact made while carrying out routine duties in adherance with Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training. To include detaining suspects of crimes in progress, interviewing witnesses, traffic stops, responding to citizen complaints. In short, just doing thier basic job.

So, its not a matter of skin color or nationality as the media would like people to believe. Its a matter of obeying all the regular laws.

I have to have a pasport in foreign countries, if I dont I risk arrest and being jailed for not following thier laws- why is this any different?

helgrenze wrote:A sobriety check-point targets a specific group of individuals - Those people driving at times around when most bars, pubs and taverns close.
That would fit the definition of profiling.

They do not post such check-points at 4pm or 9am.... only between hours when people are known to be leaving establishments that serve alcohol. This is even when faced with evidence that most alcohol related accidents take place before those times.

BUT it is a legal reason for police to stop you and check your id and such. If they find reason, based on what they can smell or see, or your behavior, from outside your vehicle, they can have you pull over for further investigation. I know of at least 2 people wanted for murder in North Carolina that were caught at such a check.

helgrenze wrote:
A sobriety check-point targets a specific group of individuals - Those people driving at times around when most bars, pubs and taverns close.
That would fit the definition of profiling. They do not post such check-points at 4pm or 9am.... only between hours when people are known to be leaving establishments that serve alcohol. This is even when faced with evidence that most alcohol related accidents take place before those times.

helgrenze wrote:
BUT it is a legal reason for police to stop you and check your id and such. If they find reason, based on what they can smell or see, or your behavior, from outside your vehicle, they can have you pull over for further investigation. I know of at least 2 people wanted for murder in North Carolina that were caught at such a check.

Or do you check the id of the hispanic grounds keeper?

helgrenze wrote:Profiling is profiling.... Its using a set of predetermined traits to identify a member of a suspect group.

helgrenze wrote:
Profiling is a tool for law enforcement.

An african american male 16-25 is shot in south Chicago.... you think the police are going looking for a white male 30-45 in Des Moines? Probably not. They will look for an African american, same age group, same city.... Because it fits the profile.

helgrenze wrote:A sobriety check-point targets a specific group of individuals - Those people driving at times around when most bars, pubs and taverns close.

helgrenze wrote:So when looking for illegal immigrants in Arizona... do stop Tiger Woods on his way to a golf tourny? Or do you check the id of the hispanic grounds keeper?

helgrenze wrote:
The criteria for how and when to ask for proof of residency is written into the law. The penalties are as well.

helgrenze wrote:
Americans are proflied this way CONSTANTLY in non-english speaking countries... and some english speaking ones.
Want proof? Its a common movie meme. The Loud American. look it up.

Fateweaver wrote:
It's okay that we must provide ID in foreign lands but foreigners don't need to provide it here.

Double standard much?

Fateweaver wrote:But they ARE in the best interest of IT'S people. Illegals aren't the countries people, as much as they want to believe they are.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I live in a border state (Cali), and I support the AZ law 100%. I would like to see this legislation adopted as model legislation by CA, along with NM and TX. And NY, and WA, and pretty much every other major entry state.

Not because I hate people who look differently from I do, but because following the law should have benefits, and breaking the law should have penalties.

Coming into the US is a privilege. Many people wait a long time and pay a lot of money for that privilege, because there are rules for this. You want in, get in line like everybody else.

helgrenze wrote:First the police have to have a reason to even suspect the person.
As in: Have they violated a LAW?
Were they doing something outside normal activities for the area?
As for suspecting they are illegal.......can they speak only in a (any) foreign language?
If a person only spoke french, or russian, would it not be prudent of an officer to ask for identification of some sort?

A great many illegals do not speak english. A person, "Native-born 5 generations back" would probably have decent english language skills. Not broken english or "Spanglish". I know of a Korean, not native born, that speaks as well as I do and sounds like a typical southern redneck.

Americans are proflied this way CONSTANTLY in non-english speaking countries... and some english speaking ones.
Want proof? Its a common movie meme. The Loud American. look it up.

Fateweaver wrote:That's because Americans is evil.

We loves guns (well, some of us) and we loves our country so we must be Satan incarnate.

It's okay that we must provide ID in foreign lands but foreigners don't need to provide it here.

Double standard much?

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I live in a border state (Cali), and I support the AZ law 100%. I would like to see this legislation adopted as model legislation by CA, along with NM and TX. And NY, and WA, and pretty much every other major entry state.

Not because I hate people who look differently from I do, but because following the law should have benefits, and breaking the law should have penalties.

Coming into the US is a privilege. Many people wait a long time and pay a lot of money for that privilege, because there are rules for this. You want in, get in line like everybody else.

This, of course, ceases to apply when the people in question are Asian.

helgrenze wrote:
Not all Irish are drunks.
Not all Italians are mob.
Not all Germans are Nazis.
Not all Arabs are Muslim.
Not all Japanese like anime.
Not all Hispanics are Illegal Aliens.
Not all English are "proper".
Not all Australians are Criminals.

BUT enough of each group do fall into the stereotypes to warrant the stereotype. Or the Profile. Based on race or country of origin.

helgrenze wrote:The issue is that the illegals.... from where-ever... do not HAVE the required identification.

helgrenze wrote:
US Law states that certain paperwork must be available for inspection and presented "On Demand" by any foreign national traveling in this country. If such is not presented, then they are suspected of being here illegally.
A suspicion that must be investigated.

helgrenze wrote:
By your arguement no-one of hispanic origin should be subject to such a check because that would be "Racial Profiling".

helgrenze wrote:
My point is that if a person fits a profile, and all criminal profiles include RACE as a catagory, then it is not unreasonable to be suspicious of that person.

helgrenze wrote:
You act like they are saying that ALL Hispanics should be checked for proper id. That would include at least 6 players on the Arizona Diamondback Baseball team.

helgrenze wrote:The issue is that the illegals.... from where-ever... do not HAVE the required identification.

US Law states that certain paperwork must be available for inspection and presented "On Demand" by any foreign national traveling in this country. If such is not presented, then they are suspected of being here illegally.

If you cross the border at an established crossing, you have to show ID, whether you were born here or not.
If you cross the border anywhere else, regardless of country of origin, you have violated this nations laws and should be prosecuted.

By your arguement no-one of hispanic origin should be subject to such a check because that would be "Racial Profiling".

My point is that if a person fits a profile, and all criminal profiles include RACE as a catagory, then it is not unreasonable to be suspicious of that person.

The Arizona law does not include ANY description of what an illegal immigrant looks like. And Does limit officers to Legitimate Contact... in the pursuit of their normal duties.

You act like they are saying that ALL Hispanics should be checked for proper id. That would include at least 6 players on the Arizona Diamondback Baseball team.

Police know who lives in their jurisdiction. They can establish a rapport with local citizens and know if some-one is out of place.
You want this to be racial, but its not.

Not all Irish are drunks.

Not all Italians are mob.

Not all Germans are Nazis.

Not all English are "proper".
Not all Australians are Criminals.

BUT enough of each group do fall into the stereotypes to warrant the stereotype. Or the Profile. Based on race or country of origin.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not at all.

However, Asians have been strongly discriminated against under legal immigration quotas, and have considerably less ability to simply sneak their way in, so forcing everybody to play by the rules would naturally be in their best interest.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If Asians gain more / lose less when the playing field is level, I fail to see that as any sort of problem.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's merely their reward for following the rules of the game.

helgrenze wrote:
Racism and Racial Profiling are not the same thing.

helgrenze wrote:
And the AZ law states that ANY person can be asked to prove their residency. It does not SAY only brown skinned people.

dogma wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
Racism and Racial Profiling are not the same thing.

Son, you just opened a can of philosophy.

Racial profiling is the inclusion of race as a determiner of guilt.

Racism is the use of race as the primary determiner of guilt.

helgrenze wrote:
And the AZ law states that ANY person can be asked to prove their residency. It does not SAY only brown skinned people.

Yes, that's nice. And expect that all Illinois people will be asked to prove their ownership of their vehicle.

"Racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a "predictable" manner."

"Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Or, on the opposite side, racism can be described as the belief that a certain race or races portray undesirable characteristics . "

This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.

helgrenze wrote:I get asked for ID all the time. Is it because I am White? or because the law dictates that it is required?
I have been accused of being Racist, so Yeah, I am familier with the concept.
I have also been called a Nazi because I am german and know the difference between a Sharp and a Neo-nazi.
I have been told I am an alcoholic because it is in my "Irish Genes".
I have been asked if certain relatives are mobsters because they have Italian last names.

And if you actually look into it, while all nationalities, all are also considered distinct "Races" within the Caucasian subcatagory.
Racism and Racial Profiling are not the same thing.

And the AZ law states that ANY person can be asked to prove their residency. It does not SAY only brown skinned people.

(As for Australia..... It was founded as place for England to dump their convicted criminals.)

Fateweaver wrote:I think we need to agree to disagree and that nobodies minds are changing.

helgrenze wrote:
"Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Or, on the opposite side, racism can be described as the belief that a certain race or races portray undesirable characteristics . "

See, not the same....

helgrenze wrote:
Illinois has more issues than that.....such as Chicago wanting the National Guard to be called in because of gang violence..... wanna talk Racial Profiling? Tjis is where my earlier scenario was based. Black youths are killing black youths in chicago. Now send in some NG from Peoria....what happens when the NG get shot at and they fire back? If the Guardsman is white... The Racial profiling flag goes up.

Mistress of minis wrote:At its core, this isn't an issue of race, but of Nationality. People seem to overlook that fact.

Mistress of minis wrote:
If I have to spend an extra 5 minutes during a traffic stop to prove my citizenship, I can deal with it.

Mistress of minis wrote:
as it implies all the police are racists.

Mistress of minis wrote:
That seems.....slowed.

If I have to spend an extra 5 minutes during a traffic stop to prove my citizenship, I can deal with it. I mean, the basic problem most people are having, is that they dont seem to have any faith in the police to fairly enforce the law.

Its sad, as that really seems to be a bigger form of discrimination than the racial profiling(which hasnt even happened) , as it implies all the police are racists.

Theyre just people that are doing an already difficult job to help us, and help our communities. Alot of you dont seem to comprehend that and seem to be casting the police officers into a worse light than the people who are knowingly commiting a crime when they enter our country.

helgrenze wrote:
I would also expect there to be, given the ethnic make-up of the state, a sizable Hispanic population within the Law enforcement community, which would also lower the incidents of racial profiling.

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:At its core, this isn't an issue of race, but of Nationality. People seem to overlook that fact.

No, that's wrong. Unless you feel predisposed to hate the French?

Mistress of minis wrote:
If I have to spend an extra 5 minutes during a traffic stop to prove my citizenship, I can deal with it.

How about an extra 5% Federal income tax?

Mistress of minis wrote:
as it implies all the police are racists.

No, that isn't the necessary implication. That is your implication.

Mistress of minis wrote:
That seems.....slowed.

This is when I outline all the logical fallacies in this thread. Seriously, it is depressing.

Bingo. People seem to think that police are imported from some factory. Theyre not, theyre people that live in the same neighborhood most of us do. Their kids go to the same schools, they shop at the same grocery stores, eat at thesame restaurants etc et

helgrenze wrote:Actually, in the cases above, a majority were made by blacks. And since one in particular was an admitted "Black Supremist" I do feel that it was similar.