Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

The laws targetting companies that hire illegals were enacted here in Az 2 or 3 years ago. Been there, done that. It made a dent, but its hard to enforce on a statewide level as it just made for more 'under the table' jobs.

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.

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.

Immigration laws are Federal mandated- to the constitutional level I believe- specifically to prevent 50 states from all having differing immigration laws. The Partrot act actually went a long ways in establishing the first steps in National ID recognition. 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).

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

The federal government establishes the criteria for citizenship, but that isn't the same thing as regulating the ingress/egress of people with respect to the United States. That is often a conflation in judicial precedence, but its has the same wonky basis as Roe v. Wade.

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

Yeah, that was my favorite parts of it. I strongly favor national ID, for both reasons of security and convenience.

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).

I'm not sure of that, as the biggest opponents to national ID tend to live in border states. However, you are right that the lines between those issues are blurring.

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.

I don't really think its harsh so much as poorly framed. It is a direct example of racial profiling, and I'm not sure that such a contingency is necessary here. I have the same feelings about current, federal immigration law, but fewe practical reservations given the nature of the enforcers.

Pretty soon we'll just invade Mexico. It'll be alot cheaper than invading another middle eastern country and I think the have some oil to justify it. I mean we can commute to the front lines then.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

Thats the fact sheet, which is a short legal synopsis of the bill. A simple google search turned it up, and spending just 5 minutes reading it will solve 90% of the ignorant comments I read in the first few pages of this thread

As anyone who can comprehend English can see, it only provides law enforcement the authority to verify citizenship during 'legitimate contact'. This is basically what they're doing already, with the differnce being that its now considered tresspasing if theyre illegally in the country. It turns into a felony for repeat offenses, and if smuggling drugs/weapons/or humans is involved.

Cops are jsut people- and they arent going to drive down the street looking for illegals or latinos just to harass them. Do you know anyone that makes thier job more difficult than it has to be? 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.

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.

Sure they will, because people do this now. They might not do it en masse, but it will happen.

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

Yes.

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.

Not always, as administrative criteria are not equivalent to anecdotal evaluation.

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.

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.

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.

If they were big CoD fans then all they'd have was a pistol, tactical knife and the ability to run really, really fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Bless. They get a certificate. It's just like Scouts.

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.

What stops a police officer from pulling out thier side arm and shooting people? Laws.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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.

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.

They can still make mistakes, and as far as I know, this new burden isn't exactly popular among the police departments.

I wouldn't doubt you know more than I do about this, as your assumed experience would speak to, but I also assume that there is real reason for an uproar; if only for the anger at federal government not doing their jobs.

As to the media being one voice, you should honestly shop around a bit more for your news. I referenced two entirely different opinions on this, and neither was particularly positive in it's appraisal, one being obviously more outraged.

Oh, and would I be required to carry I.D. at all times in Arizona? This appears to be a complicated issue, and one that varies quite a bit by state.

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

Yes, and if everyone was educated we wouldn't need teachers. Therefore teachers are actively harming education to keep their jobs! Or possibly that's stupid.

If you really don't know why it's stupid, it’s because you’re assuming a hive mind of individuals all working towards the same goal of group preservation. The reality is that any individual who succeeds on a personal level progresses while the negative impact to the group of the individual’s success* is spread across the whole group. That is, an individual who undertakes an initiative that stops a load of illegal immigrants coming into the country will benefit and be promoted and so everyone is encouraged to do that personally, even though if everyone executed equally effective initiatives they’d solve the problem and end the industry.

The reason they issue isn’t solved has nothing to do with a stupid, stupid idea of a hive mind of self preservation, but because it is very hard to solve a problem of a willing supply (the Mexican worker) and a willing demand. Especially when a combination of racism and moneyed interest keep the problem focussed on supply of illegal labour, and not the illegal demand.


*Which is pretty dubious assumption in and of itself.

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.

Thats bulshit, I worked at the airport during that time and the way random screening works is if the serial number on your ticket ended in 99 you got the screening.

we did have the right to add the code to anyones ticket if we thought they were acting strange, but if you did this the paper work you had to fill out was a nightmare so it was only used in situations that were suspect.

/endrant

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.

Ok. prove this or get off the "I Hate Walmart" Bandwagon.

Yes, Walmart did have an issue with a contracted company that actually DID hire illegals to clean floors. That was over 6 years ago. They have since placed such duties "in house", and do extensive backgroynd checks on new hires. At the time, they also did background checks on EVERY employee. I know this because I work for Walmart and have a relative in the FBI that has told me about the checks on my name.

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.

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.

It's a very long border, you know. You could employ everyone in the country to stand watch and there'd still be gaps.

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...

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.

Start fining farms a million dollars for hiring illegals and you'll see one area of demand dry up really fast.

I like to carry my McLovin ID with me...just to feth with the cops.

I'd say it's bout time that Arizona gave a middle finger to Obamanation and said "we are doing this our way, as is our right granted to us in the US Constitution".

If the Federal government can't pull it's head out of it's ass and do something than the States have to take it upon themselves.

Could this create problems? Sure. Will it lead to profiling? Possibly but you can't tell me we all haven't profiled at some point in time. Work retail once, you ALWAYS subconsciously profile certain peoples. It's just nature.

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 mean, if theres no drugs or repeat offenses involved, its a MISDEMEANOR. 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.

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?

Yeah really. In MN I have 30 days to prove I had a valid DL or insurance at the time of the stop.

Sure it's easiest to always have my id on me but there are times I've left my wallet at home, bringing only a handful of cash with me to run and get a quick snack. Even if I get pulled over it's not auto-jail for not having my license on me that day.

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...

Well then lets break this one down.....
Legitimate:

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)

For this discussion I believe that definitions 2-3a for legitimate fit,
2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false
3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements

and definition 2 for contact fits.
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

Seems to me that if the officer has a nonspurious contact, in accordance with Law or with established legal forms and requirements, with a person, then they could require that proper proof of identity and legal residence be provided or that person would face going to jail, until such proof can be provided.

Make sense now?

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.

lol Helgrenze, logic has nothing to do with this situation!!!

The guy inside the lil talking box told everyone to be outraged about this- so they must be outraged

Funny how a state enforcing a FEDERAL law at a local level gets so many people wound up.

Because Mistress, the Federal government doesn't like it's toes stepped on.

It's like slapping someone else' child in Walmart for being a brat. Right or wrong the parent doesn't like it but won't do anything his or herself to fix the problem.

Got to love certain States exercising their power to tell the Fed. government to go feth itself.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.