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.

BaronIveagh wrote:The Trail of Tears = Legal under US law at the time.

As the local enforcer of historical accuracy, I am here to inform you citizen that your blasphemies will not be tolerated. This was NOT legal at the time, and was committed as a willful violation of a FEDERAL ruling that it was illegal. Fact: Andrew Jackson was a Richard-Head...

As a 2nd generation descendant of an illegal immigrant from Mexico, I support this law. Along with most of the Mexican half of my family, we support the security of our border first, and the sorting out of immigration second. We are generally in support of deporting any criminal who is illegal, and we find it a serious problem that so many white people feel they need to help us to get better. Our family has worked very hard to get where we are, and we are very thankful for the USA. That being said, we have no time for the latent racism that is embedded in all of these so-called "immigrant rights" activists. We are products of the American dream and have never asked for a dime of money or a bit of help to build our own lives. Bah, enough of my emotional ranting, its a lazy Sunday, and I am in no mood to fabricate a well reasoned argument for this law. The only thinking I am doing right now is A)What movie to watch after Avatar, B: What whisky I am going to drink next, and C)How the hell am I going to build up another 4000 points of Alpha Legion in the next month????

JEB_Stuart wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:The Trail of Tears = Legal under US law at the time.

As the local enforcer of historical accuracy, I am here to inform you citizen that your blasphemies will not be tolerated. This was NOT legal at the time, and was committed as a willful violation of a FEDERAL ruling that it was illegal. Fact: Andrew Jackson was a Richard-Head...

Actually: In Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall's ruling was that the State of Georgia had no authority over the Cherokee, and that only the US Federal Government had the authority to treat with them. The Trail of Tears originated out of a dissatisfied group within the Cherokee signing a removal treaty in 1835, which Jackson convinced the Senate to ratify. So, while, yes, Jackson was a slimeball, the idea that Jackson defied the Supreme Court is a myth.

Jeb... How about.
The end of the FX Supers marathon.
Jack daniels always works.
inbetween sips of whiskey I would imagine.

helgrenze wrote:1)Conjecture. The faulty assumption being that it would primarily be enforcable via Racial profiling.

I never made that argument. I stated that this law will likely lead to an increase in racial profiling, as all laws that target a group of largely homogeneous racial composition tend to do that. I also never said anything about racial profiling being the primary form of enforcement.

The statement about racial profiling is the conclusion of one line of argumentation, it is not an assumption underpinning the argument.

helgrenze wrote:
2)Guidelines for establishing identification have existed before this.

I don't object to that. I object to the idea that someone can be detained under reasonable suspicion of trespassing, where the area to be considered is an entire nation, or rather to the idea that such a power is not prone to racial profiling.

helgrenze wrote:
3)Only in the eyes of those who would claim racial profiling as a basis for investigation. Loitering is still considered a crime.

The worries regarding racial profiling were levied due to the specific nature of the provision in 1070 which permitted the detention of an individual with nothing more than a suspicion regarding the legality of his presence.

helgrenze wrote:
4)Without copitulating to the heavy handed requirements of the Real Id.

The part of Real ID most frequently objected to, by those interested efficiency, was data sharing. The section on cooperation and assistance in 2162 essentially implements the data sharing element of Real ID.

1) Nothing in the language of the law or its modifier suggests any particular group based on appearance or otherwise.

2)Since the law is a state statute, it would only cover those lands within the borders of the state and not be applicable outside Arizona.

3) Legality of Presence is not the same as Trespassing.

helgrenze wrote:1) Nothing in the language of the law or its modifier suggests any particular group based on appearance or otherwise.

You mean other than people applying for state benefits, employers, and offenders?

I mean really, if the bill doesn't imply that there are possible offenders, then it isn't going to be very easy to enforce.

helgrenze wrote:
2)Since the law is a state statute, it would only cover those lands within the borders of the state and not be applicable outside Arizona.

Obviously. This is a conversation about Arizona law.

helgrenze wrote:
3) Legality of Presence is not the same as Trespassing.

No it isn't, and I didn't use them interchangeably.

dogma wrote:
You mean other than people applying for state benefits, employers, and offenders?

None of these criteria would lead to racial profiling.

dogma wrote:
I don't object to that. I object to the idea that someone can be detained under reasonable suspicion of trespassing, where the area to be considered is an entire nation, or rather to the idea that such a power is not prone to racial profiling.


The worries regarding racial profiling were levied due to the specific nature of the provision in 1070 which permitted the detention of an individual with nothing more than a suspicion regarding the legality of his presence.

With these two statements, you equated Tresspass and Legality of Presence, as both being a basis for detainment. Reasonable suspicion of Trespass is something police can already detain and question a person about. SB1070 allows for further questions to be asked regarding Legality of Presence.

LAW is fluctuating and often poorly planned, poorly executed. More laws equals more chances of this happening and being abused from each office it passes through. I believe this whole thing is an attempt to raise jobs for bureaucrats and law enforcement.

Let me tell you something about 'Law': back in 2002ish a girl was found stabbed and burned to death underneath a bridge. It was later found, because someone squeaked, that a tribe of street kids to whom she belonged had stabbed her dead and lit the body on fire. The reason being, that she lied about a guy raping her, leading to her tribe risking assault and/or murder 2 charges to curb stomp the guy she accused. The innocent guy was dead, the girl was dead. Nobody ever went to the cops because nobody believed they would do anything and nobody wanted to get the better part of said street comminity involved with cops. That is called street justice. It is very common.

The law is a pussy in comparison, although they are better armed. The LAW lets Paris Hilton out of jail before the end of her sentence. The LAW allows Martha Stewart to still broadcast her repulsive TV show.

Point being, people are the law, not legal bureaucrats inventing endlessly more convoluted technicalities.

helgrenze wrote:
None of these criteria would lead to racial profiling.

They do when there is a strong correlation with a racial group.

helgrenze wrote:
With these two statements, you equated Tresspass and Legality of Presence, as both being a basis for detainment.

They are both legitimate reasons for detainment, and recognizing that fact is not to equate the two.

helgrenze wrote:
Reasonable suspicion of Trespass is something police can already detain and question a person about. SB1070 allows for further questions to be asked regarding Legality of Presence.

And also regards those illegally present on public or private property within Arizona to be guilty of trespassing. The law itself links legality of presence to trespassing.

Guitardian wrote:Point being, people are the law, not legal bureaucrats inventing endlessly more convoluted technicalities.

People are not the law, this is flatly wrong.

Justice is complicated, and often does not provide retribution for anyone. I also am at a bit of a loss, as to what your statement was suggesting. Maybe that people will (and possibly should) go out and try to be vigilantes. Maybe that nihilism is soothing to a disenfranchised segment of society...

Wrexasaur wrote:Maybe that people will (and possibly should) go out and try to be vigilantes. Maybe that nihilism is soothing to a disenfranchised segment of society...

Wrex, the fact of the matter is that law is not morality. And to expect laws that are in step with the people, one must expect that our leaders are not self interested, traitorous, scheming weasels who are perfectly willing to take bribes from other self interested parties. As someone who's served as an auditor, I can assure you, they are.

They used to call it the British East India Company. Now, we call it General Dynamics. In the future, they might call it Weyland-Yutani.

BaronIveagh wrote:Wrex, the fact of the matter is that law is not morality.

Law is not the people either. I could argue that law, and justice more specifically, is an extension of a society. I would have a hard time presenting it as fact, simply because no idea is shared throughout society, with complete agreement. Justice is the balance of interested parties, and the implementation of measures that serve to protect the public at large. Individual rights are also protected, but they do not solely determine the direction of law.

YMMV of course, but saying that the 'people are the law', is Hollywood gibberish. Police enforce the law, and as far as direct concern because of that, they also carry a fair amount of the use of our laws. That is what this conversation is about, among many other issues, but none among them resemble a spaghetti western.

And to expect laws that are in step with the people, one must expect that our leaders are not self interested, traitorous, scheming weasels who are perfectly willing to take bribes from other self interested parties. As someone who's served as an auditor, I can assure you, they are.

Besides the fact that no system is perfect, and ours is generally designed to use such human tendencies to it's advantage; traitorous is a very strong term.

Self interest does not equate to being a vile being, it is something that every person experiences, and one can readily hope that the balance of self interest is not beyond our means.

I am a cynic, not a nihilist.

My point was, that if people see law taken and abused on national TV, they will be more prone to either abuse it or resent it, or just ignore it. That has been street justice for years. You think crack dealers call the cops when they get ripped off by other crack dealers?... okay take it down a notch and you have people who are now scared to call cops because they or someone they know doesn't have their paperwork. I dont advocate vigilanteism those days of my life have already been lived through. But I do advocate common sense, and common sense dictates that not having a card on you leading to jail time and a fine is just fething dumb.

... breaking your oath of office and the people you were elected to serve (a word not often heard in politics these days) for personal gain is treason, no matter how you cut it. Under the terms of the 'law' written by those same persons, it might only be 'bribery' and, depending on it's severity, might not even be punished.

After all, corporations can donate an unlimited amount of money to politicians, these days.

And to be honest, I do advocate vigilantism. I've seen the system fail to bring 'justice under the law' too many times. I've investigated too many crooked men who have altered the law to stack the deck in their favor. In my service to the Seneca Nation of Indians, I've seen the law used as a tool to rob, rape, and ruin, in a manner clearly not in the public interest.

The only honest Congressman I've ever met was Jim Traficant, who took bribes from the mob, and paid income tax on them. He never denied that he was bought and paid for, only that the system was rigged against him, and I hope he wins his bid for election now that he's out of jail again.

helgrenze wrote:Mexico is issuing statements, mexican citizens are protesting in Arizona, and there is a general uproar from south of the border concerning what is essessentially an internal issue within the US.
Other countries are allowed to limit immigration but the US must allow foreign nationals to just walk in whenever and where-ever they want?

That is a perfectly sensible reason to ignore Mexican protests on the issue. You should do that.

But you should also ensure that the law is a good law, with the benefits worth the problems . And that is what we're discussing, or trying to discuss - I'm still waiting for your answer to my point on focussing on companies that give jobs to illegals.

And its not like this is the most bizarre law on the books in Arizona, but apparently they also had issues with these...
One must be 18 years old to buy spray paint.
It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.

Spray cans are often used in graffiti, and can be used to get you high. Their control, or at least a monitoring of their purchase, is fairly common. The glass of water is an odd one to make to the records, but a lot of places have hospitality laws - when travel was more onerous refusing a glass of water in an arid climate could be dangerous.

The other laws look pretty stupid, and yeah, lots of places have stupid laws. But so what? Since when was a law justifiable because there were other dumb laws? It's the equivalent of hearing someone say 'that Andy Roddick isn't as good a player as he was three years ago' and replying 'yeah, my bowlegged four year old niece is worse'. Andy Roddick's tennis is better or worse, regardless of the position of some random third party. The law is good or bad, regardless of the position of some random third party.

helgrenze wrote:So what is the stance against it?
That the law, by and of itself, despite the actual language written into it, is racist and therefore unjust?

What? 18 pages and you don't understand the basic arguments against the law? Are you honestly struggling to keep up with the thread, and have really just missed each point made? Are you just too lazy to read other people's posts? Are you choosing to ignore the points made because you can't think of a rebuttal? What's going on that's seen us get 18 pages in to a thread without you reading one single argument against the bill?

Again (and again and again and again) the law will increase instances of racial profiling. Given that people do not always carry ID on them at all times it will produce instances of false positives.

While to some extent this could be acceptable, there are better and cheaper ways to reduce the numbers of illegals coming over the border - remove the supply of jobs available by properly enforcing laws against companies employing illegal aliens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:Point being, people are the law, not legal bureaucrats inventing endlessly more convoluted technicalities.

Actually, what makes it the law is the distance it has from the people. It is the idea that even if you make a TV show that Guitardian doesn't like you will be judged by the letter of the law.

That idea is an ideal and there are all kinds of problems, and we need to keep moving closer to that ideal, but that's got nothing to do with street gangs taking it upon themselves to enact vengeance and killing two people needlessly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:My point was, that if people see law taken and abused on national TV, they will be more prone to either abuse it or resent it, or just ignore it. That has been street justice for years. You think crack dealers call the cops when they get ripped off by other crack dealers?... okay take it down a notch and you have people who are now scared to call cops because they or someone they know doesn't have their paperwork. I dont advocate vigilanteism those days of my life have already been lived through. But I do advocate common sense, and common sense dictates that not having a card on you leading to jail time and a fine is just fething dumb.

You've approached this from an odd angle, but I think I agree with your general point.

Under this law, like all illegal immigrant crackdowns, there is an issue that illegal aliens working in particularly oppressive and/or dangerous conditions will not report it because they will be the ones punished.

Amusingly enough, the failure to enforce the law is a big problem. There was a complaint about Illegal immigrants working at a construction site. The electricians called INS.

They were asked how many there were. There were about 30 of them.

INS then told them that less then 50 was too few to send someone out to investigate.

That said: Adopting the idea that all citizens must be ready to provide proof of their identity at any time and that the government want's to know even more things that are none of it's damn business is repugnant.

We fought the Nazis. We shouldn't try and become them.

dogma wrote:They do when there is a strong correlation with a racial group.

And which racial group in particular correlates to people applying for state benefits, employers, and offenders? Other than all of them?

dogma wrote:And also regards those illegally present on public or private property within Arizona to be guilty of trespassing. The law itself links legality of presence to trespassing.

A public park after certain hours may be 'closed' and to be in that park after hours would be considered Trespassing. Being on Private Property without the owners permission is also Trespassing. What SB1070 does is adheres to the standard that if a person is in the country illegally then they are also considered to be trespassing, not the other way around.

Sebster.
To Quote...

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,[23] will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten 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. (Arizona SB1070, Section 5.)

It is already against the law to hire illegal aliens. as BaronIveagh notes:

BaronIveagh wrote:Amusingly enough, the failure to enforce the law is a big problem. There was a complaint about Illegal immigrants working at a construction site. The electricians called INS.

They were asked how many there were. There were about 30 of them.

INS then told them that less then 50 was too few to send someone out to investigate.

...INS, The Federal officials tasked with this mission, are refusing to do the job.

As for the required Proof of residency.....

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. (Arizona SB1070, Section 2.)

If another state requires proof of residency, or legal presence, to issue any form of ID, including a Drivers License, that would be considered valid evidence enough. It also specifies Tribal ID.

The more things change...

"His father and oldest sister were farming sugar beets in the fields of Hamilton, Mont., and his mother was cooking tortillas when 6-year-old Ignacio Piña saw plainclothes authorities burst into his home."

"They came in with guns and told us to get out," recalls Piña, 81, a retired railroad worker in Bakersfield, Calif., of the 1931 raid. "They didn't let us take anything," not even a trunk that held birth certificates proving that he and his five siblings were U.S.-born citizens."

"The family was thrown into a jail for 10 days before being sent by train to Mexico. Piña says he spent 16 years of "pure hell" there before acquiring papers of his Utah birth and returning to the USA."

"The deportation of Piña's family tells an almost-forgotten story of a 1930s anti-immigrant campaign. Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were pressured — through raids and job denials — to leave the USA during the Depression, according to a USA TODAY review of documents and interviews with historians and deportees. Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens. " - USA Today, 04/05/06.

helgrenze wrote:Sebster.
To Quote...

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,[23] will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten 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. (Arizona SB1070, Section 5.)

It is already against the law to hire illegal aliens.

Well, duh. Of course it's against the law, but are you going to argue that it's meaningfully enforced?

sebster wrote:Well, duh. Of course it's against the law, but are you going to argue that it's meaningfully enforced?

What, hold American Business responsible for something? Are you MAD? Don't you know it's their Divine Right to ignore the law entirely? After all, the Nobility moves in ways we common folk can't understand, and it is through their WISDOM that you and I are exposed to dangerous chemicals, unsafe drugs, our food poisoned, our crops ruined by factory emissions, and our homes seized in the name of eminent domain.

How DARE you suggest they might have to be responsible for thier actions! In the name of the Republican Party, I cast thee out, Satan! [/sarcasm]

helgrenze wrote:So, the issue isn't what the law actually says, but what you say it means.

I have noticed that almost no-one here has thought to include the situation in Chicago in their discussion of the "coming Police State" arguement.
For those out of that loop....

From AP "Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence. CHICAGO – Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops."

That would constitute Martial Law in Chicago, Third Largest city in this country. And since most of the "Offenders" in Chicago are of African descent, well,... That would be racial profiling, wouldn't it?

No.

Consider the difference between these two statements:

1. Mr Mayor, you have to call out the National Guard -- there are rioters in the streets.

2. Mr Mayor, you have to call out the National Guard -- there are black people in the streets.

helgrenze wrote:
And which racial group in particular correlates to people applying for state benefits, employers, and offenders? Other than all of them?

I said 'strongly correlates'. Referencing mere, or weak correlation, which is the only thing you could be attempting to reference, represents a deliberate attempt to twist my words, or ignorance with respect to the nature of correlation.

According to every, or very nearly every, estimate the category of 'offenders' strongly correlates with Hispanic origination. Hispanic origination strongly correlates with a certain set of physical characteristics, and those characteristics represent race.

helgrenze wrote:
A public park after certain hours may be 'closed' and to be in that park after hours would be considered Trespassing. Being on Private Property without the owners permission is also Trespassing. What SB1070 does is adheres to the standard that if a person is in the country illegally then they are also considered to be trespassing, not the other way around.

Which links legality of presence to trespassing. The word 'link' does not imply any sort of direction.

Tresspassing is what some people have to do to live, a circumstance which is both caused by, and persecuted by "LAW". Sometimes its raining and at least the park has a bench to hide under. Priorities, folks. Obey the law, or make them sleep in the open during a rainstorm?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575220594280145492.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:Tresspassing is what some people have to do to live, a circumstance which is both caused by, and persecuted by "LAW". Sometimes its raining and at least the park has a bench to hide under. Priorities, folks. Obey the law, or make them sleep in the open during a rainstorm?

Priority is to keep the park safe and free for everyone.
My empathy for homeless men is directly proportional to the large numbers of illegal immigrants who risked death to get here for lower paying jobs that I've known.

Frazzled wrote:Priority is to keep the park safe and free for everyone.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread -- the rich as well as the poor."

- Anatole France, Crainquebille, 1902

"Get the hell off my lawn!"
-Frazzled, last week.

I was born. I breath. I need somewhere to sleep just like my fellow man, but I am not allowed anywhere. The end.

-me, portland county court, 2005

and yes my 'tresspassing' charge was dropped.

wanna play quotes? I got plenty more

Guitardian wrote:I was born. I breath. I need somewhere to sleep just like my fellow man, but I am not allowed anywhere. The end.

-me, portland county court, 2005

and yes my 'tresspassing' charge was dropped.

wanna play quotes? I got plenty more

"I walked here. I work two jobs. F them, bendehos." My neighbor, shortly before going to job II.

That's a good quote. hope he doesn't live in AZ though.

"I walk to work, I live in the park, and I get 50 bucks a day building houses for you jerks to live in who want to criminalize me."

-me... portland mercury 2006

"Hey can you fix my fence for $50?"
-Frazzled, now.