What exactly is wrong with Arizona Immigration Law SB1070?

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.

**Fateweaver**

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.

**sebster**

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.

**helgrenze**

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**

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.

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

**Kilkrazy**

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?

I would say it is different because (a) it will affect legal residents in their own country and state, (b) it is clearly going to be racially biased since very few blue-eyed blond immigrants come in from Mexico.

OT I don't know if foreigners are required to carry their passport/ID when in the UK. Being a citizen it never affected me. I know my wife never bothered when she was resident here, and she was never once stopped by the police in 15 years.

**dogma**

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.

The problem is that a very large percentage of illegal immigrants present in Arizona will be of a certain ethnic heritage, and that fact will lead to a great deal of pressure of on legitimate residents of that heritage when illegal residence is regarded as a state misdemeanor.

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

The objection here isn't with respect to the severity of the punishment, but manner in which it is dolled out.

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.

Again, the objection is to the potential for an illegitimate charge.

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 its not a foreign country.

**Orkeosaurus**

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.

Maybe we should have our black-market sponsor powerful drug cartels that will corrupt their government and shoot people. That'd be a pretty dick move.

**sebster**

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.

'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.’

**Fateweaver**

Yeah.

Instead of money laundering it'd be genocide laundering.

Err, something like that.

**Dainty Twerp**

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.’

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

and Go (Red) Sox...

**sebster**

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Except I’m waiting for the actual specifics in which I’m wrong. Asking for that isn’t poor debate, it’s attempting to take the debate forward.

**Fateweaver**

Go Twins!!!

**dogma**

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

Actually, its very good methodology. Attacking a point for its lack of technical merit is one of the most powerful tactics in formal debate.

**helgrenze**

In more recent news....
(editted for clarity)

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano,the Cabinet secretary responsible for enforcing immigration laws,"We have some deep concerns with the law .. it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to concentrate on those in the country illegally, those who have committed the most serious crimes,"

read the atricle here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_bi_ge/us_holder_immigration

Homaland Security is afraid this law will keep them from doing just what the law says they SHOULD do. Now there is some logic for ya.

**dogma**

My guess is that they will inevitably cite administrative competition, which is a valid concern.

However, it isn't sufficiently problematic to invalidate this legislation.

**sebster**

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.

What, are you kidding me? Seriously? You took that literally?

Huh.

**helgrenze**

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.

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.

**Wrexasaur**

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.

Fair enough, I will make sure to take a bit of time to understand this more.

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?

Laws.

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.

But not the definition of racial 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.

This whole car analogy thing doesn't seem very solid...

**dogma**

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.

However, it is a profiling on the basis of choice. It also affects a, potentially, much smaller segment of the population.

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.

Legality is not the matter of consideration here. Well, depending on who you talk to.

**helgrenze**

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

When looking for a Serial Killer the initial profile for the Unknown Suspect starts with "White Male".
Unless something changes that opinion it stays that way... Why? because 80% of all known serial killers were White Male.
Next comes the age... which frequently depends on the victims. the younger the victims the older the SK is typical in these cases.
In child cases that means I fall into the suspected catagory. (white male, 35-50)
The police do everything they can to narrow that profile down as much as possible.

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.

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?

**Wrexasaur**

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

The real question is whether the groundskeeper is stopped by every other cop that sees him.

**dogma**

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

No, that's nonsense. If I stop you for being helgrenze am I profiling in the same sense as if I am stopping all Muslims? No. I am profiling, but I am not doing so in the same qualitative fashion.

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.

Not qualitatively similar to the targeting of an ethnicity. You introduced location, and sex.

**sebster**

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.

You don't see a fundamental difference between targetting people driving at a certain time of night and an ethnic group. Seriously?

**focusedfire**

You young guys. It is hard for me to explain what it was like growing up in a country where such checks were mostly non-existent and almost unthinkable because they smacked of totalitarianism.

I miss the old USSR. As long as they were around doing this kind of thing the west kept to the right side of reasonable search and seizure, most of the time.

**sebster**

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?

And do you think the groundskeeper, who is native born and has family in the US extending back five generations, doesn't have grounds to be annoyed when he's ID checked because he's brown?

**Fateweaver**

"How can you shoot illegal mexican women and children?"

"It's easy. You just don't lead them as much."

Hmm, the ones against it say it'll lead to more police officers being "TFG" when it comes to asking for ID's; the ones for it are saying it'll keep illegals from being "TFG" that is more likely to commit a crime than a legal citizen.

Is that about the gist of it?

**dogma**

I'm for it because it will bring us closer to national ID cards.

**Fateweaver**

I sometimes get carded when I want to buy my life fluid that is Yukon Jack and it doesn't bother me.

These people have nothing to hide you've lost 5 minutes of your life. Whoopty doooooooooooooooo.

**focusedfire**

Mentally say in a thick German or Eastern European accent, "Papers", in place of "ID check" and see if you feel as comfortable with the idea of these checks.

What happens if your wallet is stolen, lost, or heaven forbid and you are human and forget the darn thing?
Should you really have to sit in a waiting cell all day until some deputy gets off their tail and pushes the paperwork through to find out that you just happen o be really tanned?

It should also be noted that a lot of hispanics have blond hair and blue eyes. If the government used this it would make this into a stop anyone you feel like and harass them law.

Good governments only enact laws that are enforceable, in the best intrest of their people, and don't overly infringe upon their rights and daily lives on a personal level.

**Fateweaver**

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.

So it doesn't infringe upon all Mexicans, only those illegally. Asking me to prove I'm 21 is infringement but the only complaints heard regard lowering buying age to 18, not that I have to show my ID to buy booze (though trust me, some act as if you are asking them to sell you their daughter or son).