Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Illegal immigration and the state of Arizona

View Poll Results: Do you support Arizona's new immigration law?
Poll Options:
Yes 23 votes (63.89%)
No 13 votes (36.11%)
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll
Illegal immigration and the state of Arizona (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I like how once again we get to endure the word "racist" thrown around by those angry at you for opposing their slave trade.
I think your slavery comment cuts right to the heart of an important matter here, perhaps not even deeply enough. I mean, a 21st century slave would likely get fed, clothed, and have decent health care, rather than be expected to scrounge that together for themselves on a fraction of the resources.

The flip side is that there are a great many people for whom this is vastly superior to the alternative. By returning them to that alternative, it's not like you're doing them a favor.

As returning them seems to be your stance, I find your admonishments odd.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
More proof that libs have no respect for any law that they don't like. Protection of our borders and safety of the citizens is the job of the president and congress. They have failed to do that job for decades. When is the last time anyone in the current admin even read the constitution? You know, tampering in private businesses, bailing out businesses etc. REquiring citizens to contract for services like insurance.
Why not go even further out of respect for the law.

I saw set up random checkpoints in Arizona and check everyone's citizenship or visa.

Random searches would even be better. They might be hiding illegal drugs or illegal immigrants.

Conservatives for big government police state.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I mean, a 21st century slave would likely get fed, clothed, and have decent health care, rather than be expected to scrounge that together for themselves on a fraction of the resources.
I disagree in so far as that you seem to define slavery solely based on the "means" and things that someone would get.

The core of the slavery issue was liberty and freedom to pursue one's own ways and interests (career, place of employment etc...)

-t
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
False. Did you read it? Here is the relevant section:

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." (Sec. 2, clause B)

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Nothing about that contradicts what I said, you simply can't read.

Lawful contact. (Not any contact an officer wishes to create outside of a lawful reason) Reasonable suspicion. (Not any old suspicion for any reason). When practicable. ( Not when and wherever). Again, none of that is even anything new, it's all part of existing immigration law to begin with. And this merely to determine the immigration status of a person, not just deport people at random- another big lie from the left. All countries on earth reserve the right to check the legal status of people entering their countries. And notice again, absolutely nothing to do with any of the left's 'everything is racist' fantasies.

This law has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with liberals who want to fundamentally change the nation by inviting anyone in without any regard to legal status and then granting blanket amnesty stopping even the slightest attempt (and really this is just that, slight) at derailing that.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Why not go even further out of respect for the law.

I saw set up random checkpoints in Arizona and check everyone's citizenship or visa.

Random searches would even be better. They might be hiding illegal drugs or illegal immigrants.

Conservatives for big government police state.
Astonishingly, you do have a point.

The law is is trying to "fix" a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
If the Federal government did its job to keep the borders safe and closed, this would be a non-issue and no law would be required.

-t
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Nothing about that contradicts what I said, you simply can't read.
No, you said "it requires a traffic violation or other reason a police officer would normally pull someone over, and normally ask for papers such as a licence and registration." "Lawful contact" does not refer to police intervention in a situation they think is unlawful. It means any behavior by the police that is not unlawful. This clause in the law serves to extend "lawful contact" to that "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States," and then orders law enforcement officials in that situation to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person in question. There is no ambiguity.

As far as I know, no one (left or right) in any public capacity criticizing or supporting this bill has come up with your particular interpretation of it.

(Edited several times for clarity)
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Apr 27, 2010 at 01:42 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Astonishingly, you do have a point.

The law is is trying to "fix" a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
If the Federal government did its job to keep the borders safe and closed, this would be a non-issue and no law would be required.

-t
A problem that shouldn't exist in the first place if the Fed government was doing its job?

I bet Arizona's new immigration law will eliminate the illegal immigration problem for sure.


I guess the Federal government isn't doing their job to eliminate drugs and terrorist from entering the US.

Let's set up checkpoints to do random searches in search for illegal drugs and illegal immigrants.

Papers please.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:39 PM
 
Slavery as it relates to this issue, is an economic system, pure and simple. The original version held that it was economically practical, even necessary to bear the expense of capturing, transporting, trading, and then housing, feeding, etc. slaves, for the (supposed) economic 'gain' of cheap labor (read, not free, due to the aforementioned expenses involved.)

It wasn't a practical economic system- as evidenced by the fact that the northern states were more prosperous and industrial without it, and the southern states were actually made and kept poorer by it.

Then the 'oh so clever' Europeans figured out that the *onsite* method of slavery was sloppy, unprofitable, and doomed to failure, so they engaged (well into the 20th century, despite all the nonsense about abolishing such practices) of 'offshore* slavery. IE: Rather than ship the slaves to produce goods, you leave the slaves where they are, take over their countries, and ship the resulting goods.

The current method supported by the pro-illegal immigrant side, is just another form of economic slavery. In this case, their wished for servants don't have to actually be enslaved, merely exploited and encouraged to cross a border and deliver themselves into their intended servitude. The beliefs are exactly the same economically, if not the same racially- that for certain goods and services to be had cheaply enough, armies of non-citizens must toil the fields to produce them. While the current employers of such 'slave labor' no longer bear any expense for housing, feeding, clothing, providing healthcare etc. (IE: owning) the slaves (and actually give the socialist left enough time, and actually we ALL will be on the hook for just that) the benefit economical is even greater. Without any of those expenses or concerns, it there are ZERO requirements as to the actual care and treatment of the workers- just the maintenance of a steady supply of new people to exploit who deliver themselves, rather than have to be forceably delivered.

The goal,, turns out to be not for the economic gain of the consumer (just as old-school slavery did NOT benefit the southern consumer) but (AS ALWAYS) to enrich the exploiter of the labor. The exploiter is saved the cost of hiring labor at a fair wage amoung citizens with full rights, and they POCKET the difference, not pass it to the consumer. That's the real goal, and where the wool is being pulled over the eyes of those in favor of slavery's current incarnation.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
"Lawful contact" does not refer to police intervention in a situation they think is unlawful.
No duh. It means the contact that you're having with a police officer is lawful, IE: they aren't just stopping you because of your skin color, or for any other non-lawful reason. Pretty much what I said, despite your WISHING for it to mean something for you to feign outrage over.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
No duh. It means the contact that you're having with a police officer is lawful, IE: they aren't just stopping you because of your skin color, or for any other non-lawful reason. Pretty much what I said, despite your WISHING for it to mean something for you to feign outrage over.
No one is arguing that the law orders police offers to stop people on the basis of skin color. But because it orders police officers to stop people on the basis of perceived immigration status, which is not a physically observable trait, people naturally wonder what physically observable traits will be used. I think it is disingenuous for you to argue that this would not be a concern, or that people are "feigning outrage" over this. Many law enforcement professionals, as I mentioned above, have expressed concerns about this.

To clarify, the two main criticisms of the law are:
- It is unconstitutional on its face under the Supremacy Clause, as it treads on federal authority
- The practical effects of implementing it will be too negative (the potential of police abuse/racial profiling; the cost to police departments in training officers and responding to lawsuits; and the potential for immigrants to be disinclined to seek police help/cooperate in police investigations, harming the community overall)
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Apr 27, 2010 at 02:04 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
No one is arguing that the law orders police offers to stop people on the basis of skin color.
Bullspit. Leftists have been falsely spewing this lame charge since even before the law was signed.


But because it orders police officers to stop people on the basis of perceived immigration status
No it doesn't, you're merely purposefully misreading it this way in order to feign outrage. It's during the course of lawful contact with a police officer that there's reason to check a person's immigration status, not 'because it orders' an arrest in the first place, based on a mere (unlawful) suspicion. And again, that's perfectly legal according to the current immigration laws, not really anything new to AZ, as it is in fact the world norm. It's only Americans who are supposed to be cowed into believing that having immigration laws is 'facist' so that the people demanding armies of brown-skinned non-citizens to provide everything for them doesn't have their applecart upset.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Bullspit. Leftists have been falsely spewing this lame charge since even before the law was signed.
Well, I'm not. I presented two other criticisms. So please move on.

No it doesn't, you're merely purposefully misreading it this way in order to feign outrage. It's during the course of lawful contact with a police officer that there's reason to check a person's immigration status, not 'because it orders' an arrest in the first place, based on a mere (unlawful) suspicion.
I never said it ordered an arrest. Now you are misreading me. I said it ordered the police officer to verify the person's immigration status, independent of any other reason to query them, where there is reason to believe the person is not in the country legally. And it does: "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." This is to be followed "for any lawful contact" by a police officer, but the justification is circular: the clause, by its very existence, defines verifying immigration status as lawful contact.

The concern is not that the law directs abuse, but that these conditions are defined so broadly that it invites police abuse.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
No one is arguing that the law orders police offers to stop people on the basis of skin color.
Maybe that should give you a clue. Your "reading" of the law might be wrong.

-t
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Maybe that should give you a clue. Your "reading" of the law might be wrong.

-t
Where have I argued otherwise?

To recap, the two main criticisms of the law are:
- It is unconstitutional on its face under the Supremacy Clause, as it treads on federal authority
- The practical effects of implementing it will be too negative (the potential of police abuse/racial profiling; the cost to police departments in training officers and responding to lawsuits; and the potential for immigrants to be disinclined to seek police help/cooperate in police investigations, harming the community overall)

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Why not go even further out of respect for the law.

I say set up random checkpoints in Arizona and check everyone's citizenship or visa.

Random searches would even be better. They might be hiding illegal drugs or illegal immigrants.

Conservatives for big government police state.
They do this already in all 50 states. They're called DUI check points.
Random checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 03:02 PM
 
Boy, this is something to watch. All this law does is require enforcement of the actual, existing laws on the books, but the race-baiting spin on this is fantastic. And the major media is right there with it.

How many of those opposed to this have actually read the legislation? I understand if it's tough to read -- after all, it's in English. Even so, it's pretty straightforward, even for the language-challenged.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

It looks, at times, like some of the folks in Washington want some violent confrontations to support their contention that the Right is a bunch of militia types. In the protests I've seen so far, it's only been the Lefty/socialista types who've been cursing and violent.
( Last edited by finboy; Apr 27, 2010 at 03:15 PM. Reason: added linky)
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
No one is "looking the other way." Police already check the immigration status of people they have detained.[/URL]
Nope, you're wrong on that. SOME police check the immigration status. SOME don't. For example, in Houston and other "sanctuary" cities, they are forbidden from checking any such thing. That's a big part of the fricking problem.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
How many of those opposed to this have actually read the legislation? I understand if it's tough to read -- after all, it's in English. Even so, it's pretty straightforward, even for the language-challenged.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
Already covered that.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Nope, you're wrong on that. SOME police check the immigration status. SOME don't. For example, in Houston and other "sanctuary" cities, they are forbidden from checking any such thing. That's a big part of the fricking problem.
Great, well, for now those municipalities can address that if they want. The point is the AZ law goes beyond that.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 03:47 PM
 
I think Arizona should extend the illegal immigration law to guns.

Demand provide a proof of citizenship to buy and own guns. You don't want illegals owning guns. They tend to break the law.

You know, most murders are committed with guns.

Most criminals own guns.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I think Arizona should extend the illegal immigration law to guns.

Demand provide a proof of citizenship to buy and own guns. You don't want illegals owning guns. They tend to break the law.

You know, most murders are committed with guns.

Most criminals own guns.
I got no problems with that.

-t
     
DrTacoMD  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 04:00 PM
 
Okay, here's the problem that I, and many others who oppose SB 1070, have with the law. This portion was quoted back on page 1, but I'll re-include it here.

Originally Posted by SB 1070, Sec. 2
B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.
Now I agree that there is nothing inherently racist about this portion of the law. The potential problems lie with its execution. By being intentionally vague, police are given the freedom to stop virtually any person on the street with "reasonable suspicion" of illegality and insist that they prove their immigration status.

The question then becomes: what qualifies as "reasonable suspicion"? I lived in Arizona for a long time, and let me tell you: there's really no apparent difference between a legal and illegal immigrant. They look the same, dress the same, behave the same, speak the same, drive the same... you get the picture.

So now there are two directions that enforcement can go. Either police will:
  • under-enforce the law, stopping virtually no one, or
  • over-enforce the law, stopping as many "potential" illegals as possible.

Normally I'd expect the first option, but there's a twist.

Originally Posted by SB 1070, Sec. 2
G. A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
Citizens have the right to sue their local municipality if they believe that the police are under-enforcing the law. If the citizen wins the suit, the police are required to pay for legal fees, as well as "not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection." That's a lot of money for some of the smaller, poorer (and more immigrant-heavy) towns and counties in the state. And I know for a fact that there are enough racist people in the state to keep the courts very busy.

So we have a law that essentially requires police to serve as immigration enforcers, enforcing this law heavily and thoroughly in order to avoid pricey lawsuits. And since most illegal aliens don't wear a large "I AM NOT HERE LEGALLY" pin on their shirts, cops will just have to "guess" who is and isn't legal.

Now I dare anyone to tell me that this doesn't have the potential to be abused by the subset of police who have an axe to grind. They've been given carte blanche to harass any hispanics in their jurisdiction, all while claiming to be simply enforcing the law. Note: I'm not implying that all, most, or even many cops will do this, but you can guarantee that it will happen once in a while.

On a more personal note: I'm not hispanic, but I have occasionally been mistaken as such (southern Italian, so I get plenty brown during the summer). Does that mean that I should have to carry my passport when I'm visiting family down there in case a cop mistakes me for an illegal?
Trust me. I'm a Taco.
     
DrTacoMD  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Demand provide a proof of citizenship to buy and own guns. You don't want illegals owning guns. They tend to break the law.
Despite the fact that Arizona has some of the most lax gun restrictions in the nation, this is already on the books. Illegal immigrants are not permitted to purchase or even possess a firearm in the state of Arizona: 13-3101 - Definitions (note section 7, part e).
Trust me. I'm a Taco.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 04:09 PM
 
Does anyone have any concerns about interfering with legal citizens rights? If you were pulled over or stopped on the street would you be offended? If this delay caused you to be late for work or home would you be angry? Are your freedoms being infringed in this case?

Note this question has nothing to do with race. White guys, feel free to answer.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 04:17 PM
 
Seems like this has the potential to be the most useless or intrusive piece of legislation. Par for the government course, I imagine many conservatives would say.
     
DrTacoMD  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Does anyone have any concerns about interfering with legal citizens rights? If you were pulled over or stopped on the street would you be offended? If this delay caused you to be late for work or home would you be angry? Are your freedoms being infringed in this case?

Note this question has nothing to do with race. White guys, feel free to answer.
You already know my answer, but I'll reiterate: while I wouldn't be personally offended, I would absolutely feel that my rights were being infringed upon. I'll be visiting my family in AZ later this year (after the law goes into effect), and I have absolutely no intention of bringing proof of citizenship with me. But yeah, I'm also curious what other people about this one.
Trust me. I'm a Taco.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 04:38 PM
 
What is considered proof of citizenship?

I don't have a passport or a green card.

Do I carry my citizenship certificate with me all the time? Really? Why don't you guys carry your birth certificate with you guys all the time.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 04:42 PM
 
The federal government is failing in its duty to protect citizens from invasion. Arizona has no choice but to step in and protect its citizens against the presence of hundreds of thousands of law breakers in their midst.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
What is considered proof of citizenship?
A National ID card would be the best means.

The darn right should get over their angst and agree to it.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
More crap straight out of the left's "label everything you disagree with racist!" playbook. Gee, it's not like we haven't seen that tactic before- with virtually EVERY ISSUE, from tax cuts to healthcare, to national security, to immigration, etc. etc..

I've rarely seen such a mass circle-kneejerk as over this bill, and as usual, by people that haven't even considered actually READING the damn thing. Immediately the crazy left just jumped in with all their usual scare tactics, when most of it is the exact opposite of the claims.

There's nothing in the bill about racial profiling- in fact, it expressly prohibits racial profiling. There's nothing in the bill about just stopping anyone for any reason and asking for papers- in fact, just the opposite, it requires a traffic violation or other reason a police officer would normally pull someone over, and normally ask for papers such as a licence and registration. (Oh but that's right, it's fascist to ask for those things.) It doesn't grant police any broader provisions for pulling people over and stopping them.
Well of course there's nothing in the bill about racial profiling. Nobody is saying that it is. The question is NOT whether this new law will result in racial profiling de jure ... the question is whether this new law will result in racial profiling de facto. And without a doubt it will. Brown-skinned people will be the ones asked the question. Period. Latinos who are in Arizona as US citizens will unquestionably get hassled far above and beyond whites who are there illegally. Who here is willing to bet their next paycheck that this won't happen? Like ... seriously? And anyone who is crazy enough to take that action should clearly keep their a*s out of Vegas because they will be wiped out by the time they head home!

You see "racial profiling" is one of those phenomena that law enforcement agencies swear on a stack of bibles they don't practice .... but the collective experience of racial minorities bears witness otherwise. For decades African-Americans and Latinos complained of being pulled over on a "DWB" ... Driving While Black/Brown. And many of our white brothers and sisters (especially among our good friends on the right) dismissed this out of hand. Denial was (and still often is) the default position. As if black and brown people were suffering from some sort of mass hallucination or something. But lo and behold look at what we see when states started to collect statistics on traffic stops .....

In the year 2000 the State of Missouri, as an example, began to collect data and analyze the results. The current Governor and then Attorney General had this to say at the time:

Originally Posted by Jay Nixon
I am proud that Missouri is on the forefront of efforts to eliminate racial profiling, which has been defined as the inappropriate use of race when making a decision to stop, search, cite or arrest a person. To the extent that racial profiling occurs, it is an outdated practice that is not consistent with good police work, and it is a practice that is hurtful to a large portion of our population.

Racial profiling is not a visible problem to most white Americans; thus, there has been a tendency by the majority to ignore or dismiss these concerns expressed by African Americans and other people of color. Yet a national poll shows that 77 percent of African Americans believe racial profiling is pervasive. When law-abiding citizens -- including ministers, lawyers, teachers, students and even off-duty police officers -- believe they have been stopped simply because of their race, it focuses attention on a problem that we must address if we are to grow together as a community.
See the following link for the reports from 2000 - 2008.

Missouri racial profiling reports

The results are clear and the conclusion is unmistakable. I'll list the latest results below:

Key Findings from the report ....

STOPS

Whites comprise an estimated 83.8 percent of Missouri’s driving age population. The value for whites on the disparity index is, therefore, .95 (.79223/.83765). Whites were stopped, in other words, at slightly below the rate expected based on their fraction of the estimated population age 16 and older.

The same is not the case for several of the other groups. African-Americans represent 10.8 percent of the population 16 and older but 17.1 percent of all vehicle stops, for a value on the disparity index of 1.59.

African-Americans were stopped at a rate 59 percent greater than expected based solely on their proportion of the population 16 and older.

Hispanics were stopped at a rate equal to their population proportion, and Asians, American Indians, and persons of mixed or unknown race were stopped at a rate well below their proportion of the driving-age population.

The values on the disparity index for the groups can be compared directly to one another. For example, the likelihood that an African-American motorist was stopped is 1.67 times that of a white motorist (1.59/.95). In other words, African-Americans were 67 percent more likely than whites to be stopped in 2008.
SEARCHES

The search rate for all motorists who were stopped is 7.9 percent. Asians were searched at a rate well below the statewide average, and African-Americans, Hispanics and American Indians were searched at rates above the average for all motorists who were stopped.

The search rates for the groups also can be compared directly with one another. African-Americans were 1.67 times more likely to be searched than whites (11.61/6.97). Hispanics were 2.02 times more likely than whites to be searched (14.06/6.97).
CONTRABAND HIT RATE

The “contraband hit rate,” reflects the percentage of searches in which contraband is found. Contraband was found in 19.1 percent of all searches conducted in 2008. However, there is considerable variation in the contraband hit rate across race and ethnic groups.

The contraband hit rate for whites was 20.4 percent, compared with 16.6 percent for African-Americans and 13.5 percent for Hispanics. This means that on average searches of African-Americans and Hispanics are less likely than searches of whites to produce contraband.
ARREST RATE

Just under 6 percent of all vehicle stops resulted in an arrest (92,945/1,633,610). The probability of arrest varies across the race and ethnic groups.

Just over 8 percent of stops of African-Americans and nearly 10 percent of the stops of Hispanics resulted in arrest, compared with about 5 percent of the stops of whites.
Bottom line for traffic stops in Missouri?

African-Americans are 67% more likely than whites to be stopped ... 67% more likely than whites to be searched ... 23% less likely than whites to have contraband on them ... and 67% more likely than whites to be arrested.

Hispanics are just as likely as white to be stopped (though they are only 2% of the population) ... twice as likely as whites to be searched ... 51% less likely than whites to have contraband on them ... and 96% more likely than whites to be arrested.

The reality is this type of sh*t happens all over the US. Racial profiling is already occurring. Has been for years. And in a state like Arizona where Hispanics make up approximately 30% of the population they are undoubtedly feeling the brunt of it compared to African-Americans who only make up 4% of the population.

And now they want to give the police the power to demand proof of citizenship on top of this? How are law-abiding Hispanic citizens in Arizona NOT going to get hassled by this?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Oct 8, 2014 at 07:16 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
"Lawful contact" does not refer to police intervention in a situation they think is unlawful. It means any behavior by the police that is not unlawful. This clause in the law serves to extend "lawful contact" to that "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States," and then orders law enforcement officials in that situation to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person in question. There is no ambiguity.
Exactly!

Call 911 to report a crime. Police respond. That's "lawful contact". Do you have your proof of citizenship?

Ask a police officer sitting in a donut shop for direction. That's "lawful contact". Do you have your proof of citizenship?

Police officer knocks on your door as he investigates a burglary in the neighborhood. Wants to know if you saw anything. That's "lawful contact". Do you have your proof of citizenship?

Etc. Etc.

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD
The question then becomes: what qualifies as "reasonable suspicion"? I lived in Arizona for a long time, and let me tell you: there's really no apparent difference between a legal and illegal immigrant. They look the same, dress the same, behave the same, speak the same, drive the same... you get the picture.
Exactly!

"Reasonable suspicion"? Seriously .... based on what?

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 06:45 PM
 
Beyond all of that ... this is my overall problem with legislation such as this and those that advocate for it.

These "illegal immigrants" are by and large coming to the US looking for work. Trying to make a better life for themselves. And when they get here somebody is paying them. Yet for some strange and unknown reason the vitriol that we see directed at Jose' the illegal immigrant working in a meat packing factory isn't directed at Mr. Smith the owner ... who is also "violating the law" ... and who is the one that creates the conditions that induce Jose' to illegally cross the border in the first place. Now I wonder why that is?

So looking at this from a common-sense and practical perspective, it seems to me that rather than try to target the millions of illegal immigrants in the US .. and hassle the legal immigrants and US citizens who look just like them along the way ... it would make a lot more sense and be a better use of resources to target the thousands of businesses that employ the illegal workers. Dry up the opportunities for employment and the problem will take care of itself. But that would result in people from the other side of the tracks getting caught up with the law. And of course ... that'll never do.

OAW
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Actually, when the feds fail to do their job the States can step in.


Sorry, but your community college that taught you that was wrong.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Good thing you managed to make this about skin color and race within one post.

Troll.

-t
t, get your head out of your shell! It's ALL about skin color and race!
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post

I've rarely seen such a mass circle-kneejerk as over this bill, and as usual, by people that haven't even considered actually READING the damn thing. ................
Notice how no one can cite any provision in the actual law itself that's actually 'illegal' because it's actually nothing more than the enforcement of existing immigration laws.
I read it.
And I did above. It is not within a state official's jurisdiction to enforce Federal laws. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

The law is quite simply unconstitutional and will be overturned when it goes under review. It will lead to a landslide of suits for an already cash strapped state and in the end it is just an expensive exercise of political tag.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by DrTacoMD View Post
On a more personal note: I'm not hispanic, but I have occasionally been mistaken as such (southern Italian, so I get plenty brown during the summer). Does that mean that I should have to carry my passport when I'm visiting family down there in case a cop mistakes me for an illegal?
I'm guessing not. It really means you should probably avoid corridors of well-documented heavy illegal immigrant trafficking and/or busses or car trunks with 30 or more Latinos, Asians, or Europeans crammed inside. Or... you could always produce a visa, greencard, driver's license, or state ID should you be asked to produce one. After all, that's what they're for. Y'all make it sound like they're proposing internment camps or something.

Is this law perceived as targeting Latinos because they're Latino or because the overwhelming majority of illegal US residents are Latino? I mean, is it really the fault of Arizona that they're being overrun by illegal immigrants? I support SB1070 if nothing more than forcing the Federal government's hands in their Constitutional obligation to protect these and other borders. It will have been worth the turmoil and debate.

Besides, the governor of Arizona issued an executive order against racial profiling in accordance with enforcement of SB1070. I thought this was the new and improved way of taming contentious legislation. VOILA! Problem solved!
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
A National ID card would be the best means.

The darn right should get over their angst and agree to it.

-t
I'm talking about the current Arizona illegal immigration law and what's considered proof of legal residence; Not what you want.

If you big government conservatives had your way, you guys would even justify tagging all US citizens and legal residents with RFID chips like cattle, in order to proof citizenship or legal residence.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Crime has been on the decline in Arizona for decades. Even El Paso, which is right on the border, is a very safe city. Additionally, studies have shown that illegal immigrants are less likely to break the law once they've entered the country. This law serves no practical purpose whatsoever except to legitimize a bunch of assholes' racism.
EPIC FAIL:


Phoenix Number Two Kidnapping Capital as Drug Cartel Wars Intensify | Drug Addiction Treatment


Your "demonstrably false" claim on resources is bogus, as well:

$6 Billion a Year for Mexican “Anchor Babies?”


Anchor babies alone cost the US public an average $25K per year until school age - the average illegal alien's salary is $21K - that's a net $4k loss for ONE baby and illegals do not stop at just ONE, as a rule.


The new Arizona law SPECIFICALLY applies to ONLY persons who have already been stopped in commission of a crime.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Dry up the opportunities for employment and the problem will take care of itself. But that would result in people from the other side of the tracks getting caught up with the law. And of course ... that'll never do. OAW
Agreed. I refer to it as a slave trade. Companies found employing illegal help should absolutely be nailed to the wall with fines so steep as to pay for the sealing of our borders.
ebuddy
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I understand full well that there are a disproportionate number of those of color being unfairly treated in society and I realize first and foremost that there is a socioeconomic component to this mistreatment. Can you tell me how illegal immigration helps their plight in our society? Can you tell me how driving down their wages, taking their jobs, and exhausting our social services is helping them? No? Maybe you should put more than 30 seconds of thought into an argument.

*hint, it's apparently too much to ask that someone might actually address any one of the points I raised. I gave you a link to calculations of the cost of illegal immigration. Got anything to refute the figures? How about something that shows how illegal immigration is a net-gain for the country?

Your support of the Latino slave trade is not compassionate, it is naive and destructive to the minorities who reside here legally. Maybe if you actually associated with anyone of color living here legally, you'd understand.
You are correct, illegal immigration is a terrible plight on our country. No argument. This law is a misguided effort that will only target hispanics for more police harassment. I know your a big supporter of our capitalist system, but how about we slam these businesses that hire illegals? You know, take away the demand? I note your concern (above) about our down-trodden, if ALL of the "little people" weren't exploited by the business boogieman, we would all be better off. Just an aside, I watched the Goldman Sachs "people" squirm for a few hours today, but they will all go home to their McMansions and solid gold toilets. People argue what they did wasn't illegal. I'm no lawyer, but I do know what they did was wrong. It's very simple, right and wrong. Very simply, this law is wrong. You'll see...
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I'm talking about the current Arizona illegal immigration law and what's considered proof of legal residence; Not what you want.

If you big government conservatives had your way, you guys would even justify tagging all US citizens and legal residents with RFID chips like cattle, in order to proof citizenship or legal residence.
As a conservative I'm absolutely (as are most) vehemently opposed to a national ID as the perceived slippery slope to RFID chips.
ebuddy
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
EPIC FAIL:


Phoenix Number Two Kidnapping Capital as Drug Cartel Wars Intensify | Drug Addiction Treatment


Your "demonstrably false" claim on resources is bogus, as well:

$6 Billion a Year for Mexican “Anchor Babies?”


Anchor babies alone cost the US public an average $25K per year until school age - the average illegal alien's salary is $21K - that's a net $4k loss for ONE baby and illegals do not stop at just ONE, as a rule.


The new Arizona law SPECIFICALLY applies to ONLY persons who have already been stopped in commission of a crime.
Hate to break it to you, the police stop people at will. It is their word against the "suspects". Their word wins. You need to get out of Mayberry more often....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
EPIC FAIL: The new Arizona law SPECIFICALLY applies to ONLY persons who have already been stopped in commission of a crime.
Your sobering facts and such are no match for the compassion of caring people.

The law? 1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

All this law does is clarify the ability of officers to actually enforce the law during a lawful engagement. Not some of it or part of it, all of it.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by stumblinmike View Post
Hate to break it to you, the police stop people at will. It is their word against the "suspects". Their word wins. You need to get out of Mayberry more often....
He's not in Mayberry. You see, police officers in Mayberry actually appear in court. You need to get out of your gated community some time.

As if the people where you work are all running around looking for more hard work to do all day.
ebuddy
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Arizona has no choice but to step in and protect its citizens against the presence of hundreds of thousands of law breakers in their midst.
About as much right as the ATF has to show up at your door demanding you pay a parking ticket issued from Podunk, Iowa

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
About as much right as the ATF has to show up at your door demanding you pay a parking ticket issued from Podunk, Iowa
Do you know the Arizona law in contention here? It seems you may not.
ebuddy
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Do you know the Arizona law in contention here? It seems you may not.

I'm sorry what do you have a degree in?
Comp Sci maybe French Lit?

I understand how the language was phrased and that it tired to circumvent directives which on the surface conflict with Federal jurisdiction but it was a futile attempt. It does not change the fact that when it goes under judicial review by the Federal courts there is no way around the fact that the individuals who wrote it and AZ officials have to acknowledge that state officers are holding, fining, and prosecuting suspects for immigration violations which they simply cannot do. No state can.

I mean you people in here can argue like a bunch of chumps about the problem of immigration but that isn't going to change on what side of the line the laws that govern it are held. Only the Feds can write, enforce, and prosecute individuals for breaking immigration laws.

Surely you have the IQ points to grasp that

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:59 PM
 
double post

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 08:25 PM
 
Sometimes the federal government is derelict in its duties.

But do you think the law will stand? I mean, doesn't California have marijuana laws in place that directly contravene federal laws?
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
But do you think the law will stand?
No chance in hell
I still don't think AZ officials even believed it would. It was simply a way to force Obama to do something about immigration

Sometimes the federal government is derelict in its duties.

I mean, doesn't California have marijuana laws in place that directly contravene federal laws?
And sometimes its by choice. Which ties in to medical marijuana.
The Feds have done plenty or raids and arrests in CA for it. The high court already said that any use of marijuana can be banned at the discretion of the Federal Government.
So that it is allowed in any way currently is at the discretion and will of the Federal Government. They can sweep in there tomorrow and send everyone to prison if they so wished. Holder just doesn't think its a priority.

This isn't exactly the same as attempted immigration enforcement by states but it does go to affirm the preeminence of the Federal government in their right to oversee enforcement of laws that fall within their jurisdiction. Arizona cannot just up and deputize themselves to do the Feds job because they aren't happy with the results.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,