First, the legislature passes the toughest immigration law in the country, now its house passes a bill requiring Obama to produce a birth certificate if he expects to get on the ballot in 2012:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/21/national/a152843D73.DTL&type=politics
The AZ governor signed the anti-immigration bill, essentially thumbing her nose at Obama.
Quote from: guido911 on April 23, 2010, 04:00:13 PM
The AZ governor signed the anti-immigration bill, essentially thumbing her nose at Obamacommon decency and civil rights.
Fixed that for ya.
Greetings from gound zero. Here is a link to the actual order that was signed into law in the state of Arizona today:
http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0423immigration-executive-order.pdf (http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0423immigration-executive-order.pdf)
I have been living in Arizona since May of 1998, and have seen, either personaly, in the media here, or personal experiences through close friends the problems that are going on. The bill was signed today, less than twelve hours after DPS stopped a U-Haul truck in southern Arizona was pulled over and the driver and the passenger ran from the truck leaving 60 some odd illegals in the back of the truck. This is almost a daily occurence here. The US has done a good job of securing the border but has left a gaping hole in southern AZ as the point of entry for illegals. These illegals include one of the terorrist for 9/11 that was residing four blocks from where I live. The bill gives local authorities the ability to check on the status of legal residency of people that they come into contact with. The problem with the bill is the fact that it does nothing to strengthen the border between the US and Mexico. The Arizona/Mexico border is a war zone. We have had Mexican Federales posing as US/Phoenix Police and almost winding up in a gun battle that you would find in Iraq in downtown Phoenix. I have said this before and I will say it again, Arizona, and Phoenix is the second most kidnap centers in the world, just behind Moscow.
What the state is trying to do is give local law enforcement the ability to do what the feds haven't been able to do. Hopefully this will start up the Federal Immigration Reform, but a lot of people view that as giving amnesty to 11 million people, and to me the worst part of that is we might give amnesty to criminals.
For further news you can check out:
http://www.azcentral.com/ (http://www.azcentral.com/)
http://www.kpho.com/index.html (http://www.kpho.com/index.html)
http://www.ktar.com/ (http://www.ktar.com/)
http://www.kfyi.com/main.html (http://www.kfyi.com/main.html)
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/ (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/)
http://www.abc15.com/default.aspx (http://www.abc15.com/default.aspx)
Also, this bill/law is already being sued, and will be pursued in the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals.
Hani Hanjour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour)
Conveniently ignoring the fact that those children of undocumened workers are American Citizens.
Glad to see Potus Obama came out against this before it was signed. Hopefully, he'll back efforts to repeal and/or block implimentation.
Quote from: fotd on April 24, 2010, 08:03:54 AM
Conveniently ignoring the fact that those children of undocumened workers illegal aliens are American Citizens.
Glad to see Potus Obama came out against this before it was signed. Hopefully, he'll back efforts to repeal and/or block implimentation.
fify.
Are these the "law-abiding illegals"?
Quote from: nathanm on April 23, 2010, 11:04:50 PM
Fixed that for ya.
Tell me oh wise one what you know about civil rights and what have you done to vindicate them for others. And I gather that 70% of Arizonans are just indecent.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2010, 10:19:48 AM
And I gather that 70% of Arizonans are just indecent.
Yes, that would be correct.
This law is a moral and racial sin. It is completely misguided and does nothing to curb illegal immigration. People are so frustrated with illegal immigration (and rightfully so) that they will accept this racist bill because they think it doesn't affect them, and that somehow this allowing of racial profiling will only apply to persons of brown skin. That thinking in and of itself is racist. The only positive thing I can gather from this is that it hopefully will force the issue with the federal govenment and reform will follow. It is such a complex matter that I don't know how it can be fixed, but I do know this bill is not the answer.
Ultimately the bill is unconstitutional and when challenged it will be struck down in court.
However, I believe the damage has been done, and this along with the 'birther bill', the idiotic gun laws (or lack of them) and the past history of the MLK holiday and racist governors gives the state a very non-friendly, intolerant image to the rest of the world. The inevitable boycotts have already begun.
I never would have believed it, but Arizona is making Oklahoma look pretty good right about now....
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2010, 10:19:48 AM
Tell me oh wise one what you know about civil rights and what have you done to vindicate them for others.
I know that I don't carry around my papers, so if I were brown and had an accent, I'd have a fun time rotting in jail while they figured out that I'm a citizen.
If the law was less vague about what constituted suspicion that the person in question was here illegally, it might be salvageable.
I'd rather see better immigration law on the federal level, obviously. (IMO, better immigration law would let more people come here legally and force ICE to be less arbitrary about the whole thing)
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 24, 2010, 02:26:57 PM
Yes, that would be correct.
This law is a moral and racial sin. It is completely misguided and does nothing to curb illegal immigration. People are so frustrated with illegal immigration (and rightfully so) that they will accept this racist bill because they think it doesn't affect them, and that somehow this allowing of racial profiling will only apply to persons of brown skin. That thinking in and of itself is racist. The only positive thing I can gather from this is that it hopefully will force the issue with the federal govenment and reform will follow. It is such a complex matter that I don't know how it can be fixed, but I do know this bill is not the answer.
Ultimately the bill is unconstitutional and when challenged it will be struck down in court.
However, I believe the damage has been done, and this along with the 'birther bill', the idiotic gun laws (or lack of them) and the past history of the MLK holiday and racist governors gives the state a very non-friendly, intolerant image to the rest of the world. The inevitable boycotts have already begun.
I never would have believed it, but Arizona is making Oklahoma look pretty good right about now....
Notice you conveniently overlook the abject immorality of the rape, murder, and kidnapping of innocent U.S. citizens by illegals in Arizona. How about the immorality of all those immigrants that came to this country legally, and followed the rules to be come citizens just to see others entering illegally. And how about the immorality of making us taxpayers pay for their education, medical care, police protection at the expense of U.S. citizens. You seem to care more about the illegals than your own neighbors. And as for it not working, how in the he!! do you know that? You gotta crystal ball somewhere that lets you see the future?
Second, as you are apparently a constitutional scholar, please explain to me how the Arizona law is unconstitutional. For beginners, which constitution does it violate (state or fed).
Also, I am getting freakin tired of people in this country always shouting "racism". If you oppose Obama, you're a racist. If you oppose the stimulus, you're a racist. You attend a tea party, you're a racist. It's getting to the point that I think the only racists are those who call things/people racist because of their obsession with race.
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2010, 05:01:23 PM
Also, I am getting freakin tired of people in this country always shouting "racism". If you oppose Obama because he is not an American citizen or because he is black , you're a racist. If you oppose the stimulus just because POTUS OBAMA proposed it, you're a racist. You attend a tea party where there are no minorities yet signs of chimps with Obama's face on them, you're a racist. It's getting to the point that I think the only racists are those who call things/people racist because of their obsession with race.
Just you angry white guys seem obsessed with race.
Quote from: nathanm on April 24, 2010, 03:36:53 PM
I'd rather see better immigration law on the federal level, obviously. (IMO, better immigration law would let more people come here legally and force ICE to be less arbitrary about the whole thing)
Me too. But dammit the fed government isn't doing to much of anything right now. McCain wants National Guard troops and thousands more border agents (I know, that's racist too azbad), so far crickets. Look for more states following Arizona's example.
Quote from: fotd on April 24, 2010, 05:07:00 PM
Just you angry white guys seem obsessed with race.
"Most moronic post of the day" winner. Here's a pic of your trophy:
(http://www.superangrymonkey.com/monkey_biz/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/douchebag-32667.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2010, 05:01:23 PM
Notice you conveniently overlook the abject immorality of the rape, murder, and kidnapping of innocent U.S. citizens by illegals in Arizona. How about the immorality of all those immigrants that came to this country legally, and followed the rules to be come citizens just to see others entering illegally. And how about the immorality of making us taxpayers pay for their education, medical care, police protection at the expense of U.S. citizens. You seem to care more about the illegals than your own neighbors. And as for it not working, how in the he!! do you know that? You gotta crystal ball somewhere that lets you see the future?
Second, as you are apparently a constitutional scholar, please explain to me how the Arizona law is unconstitutional. For beginners, which constitution does it violate (state or fed).
Also, I am getting freakin tired of people in this country always shouting "racism". If you oppose Obama, you're a racist. If you oppose the stimulus, you're a racist. You attend a tea party, you're a racist. It's getting to the point that I think the only racists are those who call things/people racist because of their obsession with race.
While I don't necessarily think the Arizona law is racist in
intent, it will almost certainly be racist in
application. I seriously doubt every time a cop in Arizona pulls someone over for speeding they will ask for a birth certificate or passport to go along with the driver's license. Unless they're brown and speak with an accent. What other criteria could there be for suspecting someone was an illegal immigrant (in the case of Arizona, where most immigrants are from central america)?
Illegal immigrants do often, if not usually, pay their own way. Not only do they pay sales taxes, as everyone else does, they often (using a false SSN) pay payroll taxes as well. If Arizona funds schools through property tax, if they are living somewhere, they are paying for their children to be educated, whether directly or indirectly through their rent.
In any event, US citizens have already been detained (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/01/24/25392/immigration-officials-detaining.html) for long periods of time (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-07-27/news/17218849_1_judy-rabinovitz-immigration-laws-illegal-immigrant) because of questions about their legal presence (http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html). That sort of thing is not OK.
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2010, 05:01:23 PM
Notice you conveniently overlook the abject immorality of the rape, murder, and kidnapping of innocent U.S. citizens by illegals in Arizona. How about the immorality of all those immigrants that came to this country legally, and followed the rules to be come citizens just to see others entering illegally. And how about the immorality of making us taxpayers pay for their education, medical care, police protection at the expense of U.S. citizens. You seem to care more about the illegals than your own neighbors. And as for it not working, how in the he!! do you know that? You gotta crystal ball somewhere that lets you see the future?
Second, as you are apparently a constitutional scholar, please explain to me how the Arizona law is unconstitutional. For beginners, which constitution does it violate (state or fed).
Also, I am getting freakin tired of people in this country always shouting "racism". If you oppose Obama, you're a racist. If you oppose the stimulus, you're a racist. You attend a tea party, you're a racist. It's getting to the point that I think the only racists are those who call things/people racist because of their obsession with race.
Wow you are such a drama queen! You don't even live in a border state yet you have no problems making sweeping accusations that illegals are responsible for all the muders/rapes/kidnappings in Arizona. In reality, the VAST majority of illegals are law abiding and are here to work and make money to take care of their families.
Crime by illegals does happen, and all of the other problems you mentioned are huge issues and were not 'conveniently overlooked' by me or anyone else. They just have nothing to do with this current bill. This bill has nothing to do with curbing illegals from entering the country, and everything to do with violating ALL Arizonans civil rights. U.S. Citizens will be detained and questioned because some cop thought they looked 'suspicious'. No crime commited, just grilled for looking 'suspicious', i.e. Mexican. Being a criminal suspect based solely on your race is indeed racism. Sorry if you don't like the word, but it is what it is.
As far as the unconstitutionality of this law, states are not allowed to pass their own immigration laws because it is an attribute of foreign affairs. California tried back in the 90's and private litigants sued and won- the law was struck down in court. Also in question is the inevitable discrimination based solely on protected characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.
No one denies the overwhelmingly huge problem of illegal immigration, and all the problems that arise from it. Unfortunately this bill addresses none of those. It is a veiled attempt to pander to the far right (of which there are plenty in AZ) by pretending to get tough on illegal immigration through racist means.
For the record, I lived for years and still own a house 5 miles from the Mexican border. Having lived in a border town I am all too familiar with all the issues and opinions regarding this subject. I take offense that you would insinuate that I care more for illegals than I do for my own neighbors. You do not know me. Living along the border you see
firsthand human suffering: desperation, starvation, poverty, discrimination, etc. It's easy to vilify all the 'illegals' from your armchair, and even easier to forget they are also human beings, most of whom are just trying to survive.
The law is wrong headed Guido and I think you probably know that as well as D-back. Its intent is to get people at all levels of government and around the country to see the problems that the border states are having and get some action. i think those problems are profound. If they have to use a racist, profiling legislative act to do so they are more than happy to use the tea-sippers-baggers-partiers and birthers to do so. As an effort to get attention it seems to be working.
The birther provisions are just plain moronic and rate right up there with their refusal to acknowledge MLK day. Thank you Arizona, New Mexico and Mississippi, for making us look better by contrast.
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2010, 05:01:23 PM
Notice you conveniently overlook the abject immorality of the rape, murder, and kidnapping of innocent U.S. citizens by illegals in Arizona.
By the end of my last post, I'd forgotten I wanted to respond to this.
You conveniently overlook the enabler for that violence, which by the way is not caused by illegal immigration. It's caused by drug runners, who are enabled by our draconian drug laws. Sometimes tolerance towards things you don't like is a better alternative than prohibition. One results in lots of major crime and lots of minor crime.
Take away the profit motive, and the murderous thugs will go home.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 24, 2010, 06:41:26 PM
Wow you are such a drama queen! You don't even live in a border state yet you have no problems making sweeping accusations that illegals are responsible for all the muders/rapes/kidnappings in Arizona. In reality, the VAST majority of illegals are law abiding and are here to work and make money to take care of their families.
Crime by illegals does happen, and all of the other problems you mentioned are huge issues and were not 'conveniently overlooked' by me or anyone else. They just have nothing to do with this current bill. This bill has nothing to do with curbing illegals from entering the country, and everything to do with violating ALL Arizonans civil rights. U.S. Citizens will be detained and questioned because some cop thought they looked 'suspicious'. No crime commited, just grilled for looking 'suspicious', i.e. Mexican. Being a criminal suspect based solely on your race is indeed racism. Sorry if you don't like the word, but it is what it is.
As far as the unconstitutionality of this law, states are not allowed to pass their own immigration laws because it is an attribute of foreign affairs. California tried back in the 90's and private litigants sued and won- the law was struck down in court. Also in question is the inevitable discrimination based solely on protected characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.
No one denies the overwhelmingly huge problem of illegal immigration, and all the problems that arise from it. Unfortunately this bill addresses none of those. It is a veiled attempt to pander to the far right (of which there are plenty in AZ) by pretending to get tough on illegal immigration through racist means.
For the record, I lived for years and still own a house 5 miles from the Mexican border. Having lived in a border town I am all too familiar with all the issues and opinions regarding this subject. I take offense that you would insinuate that I care more for illegals than I do for my own neighbors. You do not know me. Living along the border you see firsthand human suffering: desperation, starvation, poverty, discrimination, etc. It's easy to vilify all the 'illegals' from your armchair, and even easier to forget they are also human beings, most of whom are just trying to survive.
Wow, I'm a drama queen. You started off by accusing 70% of the Arizona people of supporting a bill that was a "racist and moral sin". Notwithstanding, nice how you gave very short shrift as to the crime committed by illegals. Here are some links in which the impact of illegal alien crime is discussed (notwithstanding the fact that being in this country illegally is itself a crime):
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html
Here's an article that points out anti-immigration steps can reduce crime:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/sep/city-lowers-crime-deporting-illegal-immigrants
As for its legality, I personally have no problem with a state making it a criminal offense for an illegal alien to trespass on public and private land. I see the state has a legitimate interest in protecting private and public property land, thus making the statute constitutional at least from a formation point of view. As for federal law preemption, I do not see how the Arizona law frustrates or interferes with federal law. Do you think the law interferes with whatever our fed government is doing with immigration?
As for your taking offense at anything, stow it. I lived in Texas for some time and know a little about life in a border state so I have some context. I also been on both sides of race, gender, age discrimination lawsuits (not as a litigant) and know something about what is constitutional. With that in mind, I do support tougher laws on illegal immigration (maybe not as tough as AZ) and the idea that you think that's racist is offensive.
Quote from: waterboy on April 24, 2010, 06:49:56 PM
The law is wrong headed Guido and I think you probably know that as well as D-back. Its intent is to get people at all levels of government and around the country to see the problems that the border states are having and get some action. i think those problems are profound. If they have to use a racist, profiling legislative act to do so they are more than happy to use the tea-sippers-baggers-partiers and birthers to do so. As an effort to get attention it seems to be working.
I am not sure that "wrong headed" is the right phrase, more like desperation in my opinion. I do agree that the law is a national attention getter and a way for McCain and Brewer to get support from the right. For anyone interested, here is an article from a conservative blogger which is logical and many in here might agree with:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/24/correction-the-actual-arizona-immigration-bill/
Quote from: nathanm on April 24, 2010, 07:00:10 PM
By the end of my last post, I'd forgotten I wanted to respond to this.
You conveniently overlook the enabler for that violence, which by the way is not caused by illegal immigration. It's caused by drug runners, who are enabled by our draconian drug laws. Sometimes tolerance towards things you don't like is a better alternative than prohibition. One results in lots of major crime and lots of minor crime.
Take away the profit motive, and the murderous thugs will go home.
Check out my links in a previous post. Your post is very broad, can you source it?
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2010, 07:37:38 PM
Check out my links in a previous post. Your post is very broad, can you source it?
Not just at the moment (I'd have to go Googling, which I don't have the time for at the moment), but I've read plenty of articles in the Arizona papers regarding these kidnappings, and they seem to all be considered related to drugs, or, more rarely, human trafficking (as opposed to those who hike over the border on their own).
Quote from: nathanm on April 24, 2010, 07:53:13 PM
Not just at the moment (I'd have to go Googling, which I don't have the time for at the moment), but I've read plenty of articles in the Arizona papers regarding these kidnappings, and they seem to all be considered related to drugs, or, more rarely, human trafficking (as opposed to those who hike over the border on their own).
Don't bother. I know there is a ton of drug-related crime. I just think you were making a sweeping generalization.
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2010, 07:29:14 PM
Wow, I'm a drama queen.
I'm glad you finally acknowledged what many of us on the forum have been asserting.
Yes, this law is racist, and yes this law is unconstitutional. It'll be struck down in time, though it might take longer than any of us think (if our Supreme Court can come up with a judgment like Citizens United, anything's up for grabs, IMO).
What I think is amazingly coincidental is that senate debate (and voting) on federal immigration reform is actually scheduled to happen before the November election. I think the house has already passed a bill and like almost everything, it's waiting on Harry Reid to shepherd it through the upper chamber. This is why Obama tossed his hat in the ring when he did.
Quote from: we vs us on April 24, 2010, 10:08:49 PM
Yes, this law is racist, and yes this law is unconstitutional. It'll be struck down in time, though it might take longer than any of us think (if our Supreme Court can come up with a judgment like Citizens United, anything's up for grabs, IMO).
What I think is amazingly coincidental is that senate debate (and voting) on federal immigration reform is actually scheduled to happen before the November election. I think the house has already passed a bill and like almost everything, it's waiting on Harry Reid to shepherd it through the upper chamber. This is why Obama tossed his hat in the ring when he did.
Exactly what in this law is racist or unconstitutional? Yes, I know, it will be used to profile in a racial way because it is very vague, but that is the use of it, not the law itself.
Uh, it's unAmerican...it's not our way...it's not our tradition...it's not "give me your...."
It is the stuff that attracts flies.
Quote from: waterboy on April 24, 2010, 06:49:56 PM
The law is wrong headed Guido and I think you probably know that as well as D-back. Its intent is to get people at all levels of government and around the country to see the problems that the border states are having and get some action. i think those problems are profound. If they have to use a racist, profiling legislative act to do so they are more than happy to use the tea-sippers-baggers-partiers and birthers to do so. As an effort to get attention it seems to be working.
The birther provisions are just plain moronic and rate right up there with their refusal to acknowledge MLK day. Thank you Arizona, New Mexico and Mississippi, for making us look better by contrast.
I think that the bill/law has problems because it does not address the root of the problem which is border security. It does not make AZ a police state where you can be asked "Let Me See Your Papers" at anytime. It is intended to give the local authorities the abililty to determine the status of some ones citizenship only after being in contact with the person for something else. As it stands now, if there is a question of status, the local authorities have to contact ICE to try and make a determination. When Homeland Security Director Napolitano was governer here she pleaded with the feds to improve security on the border, and sadly she has not really seemed to address that in her new position. JMO. The problems are wide ranging with the illegals here, and it's not just drug crime, it also involves the crimes of human smuggling which one of the biggest is auto theft. The coyotes look for vans and SUV to steal to take across the border and then smuggle people into the US, and on several occasions the coyotes have tried to elude police and been involved in accidents that result in the injury and death of the people that have paid them to get into the US. The kidnappings and murders here are related to both the human smuggling and the drug trafficing, and as I stated earlier it is because the US has narrowed the porus borders to where AZ is the main point to go through the revolving door of illegal entry.
Do I think the the bill/law (I say that because it is not a law yet and won't be until some time in August) is right? No, it's flawed in parts. Does it draw attention to the problem? Yes it does. Will illegal immigration finally be addressed? Probably so, but when it is it will be attacked just as this issue is.
I am not opposed to immigration to the US. My own family immigrated on both my parents sides in the mid 1920's and they did so legaly. If you want a guest worker program so that these people can come to the US and work for a predetermined period of time and then return to their home country for a period of time before returning, then let your reps know this. There has to be some type of reform. I'm not big on giving amnesty to all of them, but give the honest ones a chance to become US citizens. As it is right now some of them don't. If they get caught, we deport them, and less than six months later they are back.
Also, I am not part of the birthers or tea partiers. I leave that up to the people that may have too much time on their hands.
Quote from: custosnox on April 24, 2010, 11:40:45 PM
Exactly what in this law is racist or unconstitutional? Yes, I know, it will be used to profile in a racial way because it is very vague, but that is the use of it, not the law itself.
You've answered your own question. The fact it is "very vague" is reason enough to strike it down. Vagueness very often causes a law to overstep people's constitutional rights. Vagueness has been cited again and again for a law being overturned.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 25, 2010, 01:58:44 AM
I think that the bill/law has problems because it does not address the root of the problem which is border security. It does not make AZ a police state where you can be asked "Let Me See Your Papers" at anytime. It is intended to give the local authorities the abililty to determine the status of some ones citizenship only after being in contact with the person for something else. As it stands now, if there is a question of status, the local authorities have to contact ICE to try and make a determination. When Homeland Security Director Napolitano was governer here she pleaded with the feds to improve security on the border, and sadly she has not really seemed to address that in her new position. JMO. The problems are wide ranging with the illegals here, and it's not just drug crime, it also involves the crimes of human smuggling which one of the biggest is auto theft. The coyotes look for vans and SUV to steal to take across the border and then smuggle people into the US, and on several occasions the coyotes have tried to elude police and been involved in accidents that result in the injury and death of the people that have paid them to get into the US. The kidnappings and murders here are related to both the human smuggling and the drug trafficing, and as I stated earlier it is because the US has narrowed the porus borders to where AZ is the main point to go through the revolving door of illegal entry.
Do I think the the bill/law (I say that because it is not a law yet and won't be until some time in August) is right? No, it's flawed in parts. Does it draw attention to the problem? Yes it does. Will illegal immigration finally be addressed? Probably so, but when it is it will be attacked just as this issue is.
I am not opposed to immigration to the US. My own family immigrated on both my parents sides in the mid 1920's and they did so legaly. If you want a guest worker program so that these people can come to the US and work for a predetermined period of time and then return to their home country for a period of time before returning, then let your reps know this. There has to be some type of reform. I'm not big on giving amnesty to all of them, but give the honest ones a chance to become US citizens. As it is right now some of them don't. If they get caught, we deport them, and less than six months later they are back.
Also, I am not part of the birthers or tea partiers. I leave that up to the people that may have too much time on their hands.
A good and reasonable post. I hope the attention spurs some similarly reasonable federal response. Something happens when local folks go Federal. I remember back when one of the major oil company execs was tapped to head the FEO (Federal Energy O??? Richardson??) back under Nixon and Ford. He continued the parade of former oil folks who seemed to forget the issues they once held dear. I suppose the picture gets larger for them and they find the world isn't what they thought it was. Just like the rest of us.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 25, 2010, 10:54:13 AM
You've answered your own question. The fact it is "very vague" is reason enough to strike it down. Vagueness very often causes a law to overstep people's constitutional rights. Vagueness has been cited again and again for a law being overturned.
That in and of itself does not make the law unconstitutional. I don't agree with the vagueness nor how it will be used, I'm just pointing out that the law itself does not violate constitution.
The law, as I've seen it reported, makes it incumbent on law enforcement to actively stop and ask for proof of citizenship. Especially in Arizona, where, say, illegal Canadians aren't too common, the target of this is very clearly people who "look" illegal, ie. hispanics. That's the racist part. It's also the unconstitutional part, and would be a violation of any legal citizen's civil rights, whether they're of hispanic or Canadian extraction.
I'm skeptical of the conventional widsom that says that illegals are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. Just as in the drug trade, crime stemming from the economics of illegal entry into the US is way out of line (Dback's kidnapping, smuggling, murder, etc), but I have yet to see any proof whatsoever that illegals themselves, once here and employed, are any more predisposed to crime than we are.
IMO, the problem with this legislation is that it targets illegals only, and doesn't specifically go after the infrastructure that makes illegal immigration work so well. That includes not only the organized crime syndicates who sponsor those coyote runs, but also the drug trade and the businesses that rely on cheap labor to function (farming, construction, the service industries, etc). As per modern conservative thinking, we want to codify this as essentially an individual moral failure -- here the moral failure of the illegal immigrant. Hence, we punish individuals. We actively avoid taking on the environment that allows this sort of system to flourish, and rather predictably, the system continues to grow while the damage amongst individuals (and their families) continue to mount.
Man does TNF have a ton of constitutional geniuses or what? I laugh every time I read posts like RW's or WE's where they are so "matter of fact" that a court will strike down a law. Seriously, how many legal opinions have they even read cover to cover?
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2010, 12:08:12 PM
Man does TNF have a ton of constitutional geniuses or what? I laugh every time I read posts like RW's or WE's where they are so "matter of fact" that a court will strike down a law. Seriously, how many legal opinions have they even read cover to cover?
Exactly zero, that's how many.
So?
Quote from: we vs us on April 25, 2010, 12:21:01 PM
Exactly zero, that's how many.
So?
So nothing. I guess you are one of those rare uneducated constitutional geniuses I have read about.
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2010, 12:29:36 PM
So nothing. I guess you are one of those rare uneducated constitutional geniuses I have read about.
Doe Doe, I don't need no constitution to determine right from wrong....
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2010, 12:29:36 PM
So nothing. I guess you are one of those rare uneducated constitutional geniuses I have read about.
Never claimed to be a genius on constitutional or any other matters. I'm only laying out why I think it won't fly. Feel free to ignore me if I'm not smart enough or well sourced enough for you.
Quote from: we vs us on April 25, 2010, 12:36:58 PM
Never claimed to be a genius on constitutional or any other matters. I'm only laying out why I think it won't fly. Feel free to ignore me if I'm not smart enough or well sourced enough for you.
Oh stop with the pity party. And the point that you are not "well sourced" is way off. You are non-sourced on this issue. Indeed, you wrote "yes this law is unconstitutional. It'll be struck down in time...". In the future I will consider these unsubstantiated and uneducated opinions as mere whining.
Quote from: custosnox on April 25, 2010, 11:16:58 AM
That in and of itself does not make the law unconstitutional. I don't agree with the vagueness nor how it will be used, I'm just pointing out that the law itself does not violate constitution.
Yes it does, because the U.S. constitution clearly states that the federal government alone has the responsibility to enact and enforce immigration laws.
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2010, 12:44:06 PM
Oh stop with the pity party. And the point that you are not "well sourced" is way off. You are non-sourced on this issue. Indeed, you wrote "yes this law is unconstitutional. It'll be struck down in time...". In the future I will consider these unsubstantiated and uneducated opinions as mere whining.
Are you ignoring me yet? 'Cause this doesn't seem like you're ignoring me.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 25, 2010, 01:58:44 AM
It does not make AZ a police state where you can be asked "Let Me See Your Papers" at anytime. It is intended to give the local authorities the abililty to determine the status of some ones citizenship only after being in contact with the person for something else.
I agree with the majority of your post, but you are completely wrong on this point, which is the most important point of this legislation.
Under this law, police are now given authority to ask about immigration status for no other reason than 'reasonable suspicion' (i.e. looking like a Mexican). The person does not have to be commiting any kind of crime or be doing anything other than just walking down the street.
So the claim that police will be questioning people only after being in contact with that person for another reason is false. 'Reasonable suspicion' is the only reason needed. I personally cannot think of any other reason for questioning someone's immigration status based solely on 'reasonable suspicion' other than the way a person looks- i.e. their ethnicity, which IS racial profiling.
Quote from: we vs us on April 25, 2010, 01:04:05 PM
Are you ignoring me yet? 'Cause this doesn't seem like you're ignoring me.
Ignoring you would be too easy. It's also more fun to publicly discredit you as a prolific race baiter and ideologue.
On the subject of race baiting, great news, Al Sharpton is heading to Arizona:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sharpton_pledge_to_fight_ariz_immig_O7cdlDmQ5GwTBrqZrorD5O
Quote from: we vs us on April 25, 2010, 11:58:41 AM
I have yet to see any proof whatsoever that illegals themselves, once here and employed, are any more predisposed to crime than we are.
Oh, they're predisposed to crime, but of the sort we could instantly ameliorate. You know, driving without a license, having no auto insurance, using false SSNs, that sort of thing.
We turn them into criminals with our moronic rules that attack the wrong end of the problem. Funny that it's done almost exactly opposite how most states conduct the drug war. Our laws are such that we're going after the users rather than the dealers in immigration. Even if we don't liberalize immigration policy, we need to turn that on its head. Unfortunately, anti-immigrant cavemen/women like we have in our own not-so-esteemed legislature are busy making it harder and harder for an illegal immigrant to stay on the right side of the rest of the law. That leads to more problems, which leads to more public outrage, which leads to more backwards laws, like the one we see before us in Arizona.
I used to be one of four white people in a neighborhood of couple thousand Central Americans and Marshallese (the Marshallese were all legal, the Mexicans and Nicaraugans and Guatamalans were mostly not), and the only problem I ever had was that they liked their car stereos loud and their landlords were shittier than mine. It was probably better than most neighborhoods composed mainly of poor white people. There were fewer fistfights and less obvious public drunkenness, anyway.
Things might be different nearer the border where there are drug runners to contend with and fewer opportunities for employment among illegal immigrants, I don't know, but my experience tells me that I have nothing to fear from the vast majority of these people.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 25, 2010, 01:03:13 PM
Yes it does, because the U.S. constitution clearly states that the federal government alone has the responsibility to enact and enforce immigration laws.
ummm... where? I'll admit there are a few of the amendments that I have not read, but beyonjd that I have not seen this anywhere in constitution. And as far as I know, there has been no supreme court decisions that have stated that the part of the constitution that says that States cannot enter into a treaty with a foreign nation applies to internal immigration laws. In fact, if this is true, then our own law in Oklahoma would be unconstitutional, yet it still stands.
Quote from: custosnox on April 25, 2010, 05:20:42 PM
ummm... where? I'll admit there are a few of the amendments that I have not read, but beyonjd that I have not seen this anywhere in constitution. And as far as I know, there has been no supreme court decisions that have stated that the part of the constitution that says that States cannot enter into a treaty with a foreign nation applies to internal immigration laws. In fact, if this is true, then our own law in Oklahoma would be unconstitutional, yet it still stands.
I couldn't find the word "immigration" during a find search of the constitution. There is this in Article I, Section 8:
QuoteTo establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
And there is this in the fourteenth amendment:
QuoteAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I noted in an earlier post that federal preemption of state law is possible where the state law interferes/conflicts with federal law (or the intent of federal law). I do not see it in this case, nor has anyone attempted to show me the conflict. Rather, I have been reading federal law this/federal law that. I also have read about the words "reasonable suspicion" being unconstitutionally vague. Of course reasonableness (or even "unreasonableness" in the context of the fourth amendment search and seizure) often appears in statutes, criminal procedure rules, jury instructions, and common law proof requirements. The other popular constitutional challenge I guess is equal protection. However, if the statute is racially neutral, I do not see the violation. Still the state will have to deal with individuals claiming their civil rights were violated, but that's not an unconstitutionality argument.
This is hilarious. Arizona is the new Oklahoma!
Talk about unintended consequences - they WILL be able to have Obama on the ballet, but if they actually go by that law, they WON'T be able to have McCain on the ballet, especially if he shows his birth certificate! His birth certificate doesn't qualify!
Luckily, that is not the only qualifier required to be a citizen, so at least that part of the law will be found unconstitutional.
This is the kind of crap that hurts states rights. Makes the Federalism case. And makes it tough to get real laws enforcement of immigration law. There is NO lack of laws that cover the topic. There IS a lack of will in enforcement, since we have decided as a society over 50 years ago that cheap, easily controlled labor is much more critical to us than actual law enforcement.
The reason we have so many illegals is strictly because we invited them!!
One law could and would solve the problem overnight. Make it a felony for the officers of a company to hire, borrow, or use illegal labor. Make it a felony for a property owner to rent or lease to an illegal. And apply both prison time and large fines. The illegals would disappear quickly if they cannot find work or a place to live.
But that would make sense.
LOL....over and over and over and over and over....
And, by the way, did I say "over and over"??
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2010, 12:08:12 PM
Man does TNF have a ton of constitutional geniuses or what? I laugh every time I read posts like RW's or WE's where they are so "matter of fact" that a court will strike down a law. Seriously, how many legal opinions have they even read cover to cover?
So many that I don't remember the number. I'm many years removed from my college days. But, suffice it to say, I most certainly did read dozens and dozens of legal opinions from cover to cover at the law library. Not willingly, of course ... it was like watching paint dry. But it was part of the coursework.
It's funny how you keep making assumptions about other people that are wrong.
It all starts with actually reading the Constitution. (And if you want some really exciting reading, go to the Supreme Court website and start reading. Oh, wait, that's the insomnia cure. Where is that exciting reading...I knew it was here just a minute ago...)
And if comprehension ensues, the enlightenment of realizing that the Constitution, by definition was designed from the ground up to be a "living, breathing, changing" thing. And the guys the wrote it kicked off the process by showing HOW to do it. Not just once, but 10 times.
And the realization that the Constitution itself defines the Supreme Law of the land as;
The Constitution
The Code of Federal Regulations (the laws passed by representation and interpreted by judicial)
Treaties entered into with the President and approved by the Senate
Takes all three - unlike the tea-baggers who grasp and cling to only one, while not even understanding that one. Or even reading it - just listening exclusively to the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch machine. Fox, AM radio, Wall Street Journal, etc.
Hey, here's an idea, if one wants truly fair and balanced - for real. Tune into PBS and NPR.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2010, 07:25:12 PM
And the realization that the Constitution itself defines the Supreme Law of the land as;
The Constitution
The Code of Federal Regulations (the laws passed by representation and interpreted by judicial)
Treaties entered into with the President and approved by the Senate
Nope. First, you omitted federal statutes. Second, the CFR are regulations/rules and not "laws" plus they are created by agency rule making and not via "representation". Third, please source where you come up with the suggestion that the constitution was supposed to be "living, breathing, changing thing." It seems to me that the amending process which you noted runs counter to that notion.
I am a little embarrassed for you given your attack on the tea-baggers apparently being stupid or naive.
Quote from: custosnox on April 25, 2010, 05:20:42 PM
ummm... where? I'll admit there are a few of the amendments that I have not read, but beyonjd that I have not seen this anywhere in constitution. And as far as I know, there has been no supreme court decisions that have stated that the part of the constitution that says that States cannot enter into a treaty with a foreign nation applies to internal immigration laws. In fact, if this is true, then our own law in Oklahoma would be unconstitutional, yet it still stands.
Power of enforcement was assigned to congress in the Naturalization clause in I believe the 14th amendment.
It is explained here:
http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html
And if you are referring to Oklahoma's HB 1804 immigration bill, according to this news article from February 2010, the 10th circuit court upheld an injuction blocking 2 of the bill's 3 provisions from being signed into law, meaning they will not be enacted.
"The judges said the two provisions that can not now be enforced are likely to be held
unconstitutional."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100202_12_0_DENVER90561
Ouch. Zing, zing.
Yes, I did forget statutes. Sorry. Add that to the list. In fairness, I did mention in parenthesis laws passed by representation, but it WAS out of context. Was supposed to be with the statutes listing. Fingers going faster than brain.
And in answer to the last part; "It seems to me that the amending process which you noted runs counter to that notion."
It seems to me the addition of the process, plus the fact of immediately using the process, and whole way it has been used for the history of the nation does not run counter, but actually is the proof of the notion.
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2010, 06:22:14 PM
I noted in an earlier post that federal preemption of state law is possible where the state law interferes/conflicts with federal law (or the intent of federal law). I do not see it in this case, nor has anyone attempted to show me the conflict.
But isn't requiring Arizona officials to have to enforce the new state immigration laws a conflict with Federal enforcement laws?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 25, 2010, 07:44:12 PM
Power of enforcement was assigned to congress in the Naturalization clause in I believe the 14th amendment.
It is explained here:
http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html
And if you are referring to Oklahoma's HB 1804 immigration bill, according to this news article from February 2010, the 10th circuit court upheld an injuction blocking 2 of the bill's 3 provisions from being signed into law, meaning they will not be enacted.
"The judges said the two provisions that can not now be enforced are likely to be held unconstitutional."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100202_12_0_DENVER90561
Come on azbad, I gave you the constitutional provisions just a few posts above. When I talk politics, I will concede I am obviously conservative. When it comes to the law, though, I really do try to do some research so folks here know what the law is rather than what they think the law is. I really want to have good debate on law-related issues.
I'm trying so hard to understand why many people oppose this law in Az. Maybe I'm missing something. But take a look at Mexico's immigration policies~
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632
Maybe we could learn something from them.
I've glanced at the policies of a few countries and most of them require that you have an employer who is a sponsor and that the job you will be doing can't be filled by a citizen of that country.
Our own country is struggling with high unemployment rates, the inability to feed and provide healthcare for our own citizens, and yet we welcome more in with open arms just because they managed to cross our borders. They drive down our wages since they'll work for peanuts because they have no problem sharing a household with many others rather then living separately as families. Their medical care is often provided by emergency rooms and charged to our counties. They drive without liability insurance and just don't seem to want to assimilate and truly become U.S. citizens. Many prefer to speak their own language and fly their own flag within our borders. Will they join our military and fight for our country like our own ancestors did?
As far as racial profiling~if white European descendants would be causing a lot of problems and I'd be aware that I may have to prove my citizenship when I'm out and about, why would it be so difficult for me to put a copy of my birth certificate or my citizenship papers in my purse? I already have my driver's license, proof of insurance, medical card, credit card, work ID card, etc. with me so what would be the big deal with having another paper proving who I am and what country I belong in?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 25, 2010, 07:53:05 PM
But isn't requiring Arizona officials to have to enforce the new state immigration laws a conflict with Federal enforcement laws?
How so? First, state law enforcement officials enforcing state laws even in instances where there may be similar federal laws being enforced by federal law enforcement officials happens all the time. Moreover, I would suggest that in the end, Arizona law enforcement are actually achieving the ultimate end of federal immigration policy (assuming there is no abuse in the reasonable suspicion which I concede is a strong possibility), which is combating illegal immigration in the country.
Quote from: Jammie on April 25, 2010, 08:00:09 PM
I'm trying so hard to understand why many people oppose this law in Az. Maybe I'm missing something. But take a look at Mexico's immigration policies~
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632
Maybe we could learn something from them.
I've glanced at the policies of a few countries and most of them require that you have an employer who is a sponsor and that the job you will be doing can't be filled by a citizen of that country.
Our own country is struggling with high unemployment rates, the inability to feed and provide healthcare for our own citizens, and yet we welcome more in with open arms just because they managed to cross our borders. They drive down our wages since they'll work for peanuts because they have no problem sharing a household with many others rather then living separately as families. Their medical care is often provided by emergency rooms and charged to our counties. They drive without liability insurance and just don't seem to want to assimilate and truly become U.S. citizens. Many prefer to speak their own language and fly their own flag within our borders. Will they join our military and fight for our country like our own ancestors did?
As far as racial profiling~if white European descendants would be causing a lot of problems and I'd be aware that I may have to prove my citizenship when I'm out and about, why would it be so difficult for me to put a copy of my birth certificate or my citizenship papers in my purse? I already have my driver's license, proof of insurance, medical card, credit card, work ID card, etc. with me so what would be the big deal with having another paper proving who I am and what country I belong in?
Better duck.
Guido,
Ok, here is a seed question on law related - well, actually it is still political -
Ok, two questions...
First, are there actually any law-related issues that aren't political. I have thought about this in the past, and I can't really think of anything, even in the civil, that isn't somehow political. (Personal opinion moment; I believe that anytime we get away from the basics of the Golden rule and the Ten Commandments we start to lose our way in the weeds and we are by my possibly feeble definition, political.)
Second, how do we reconcile the concept of personal liberty, non-intrusive government, and many fine libertarian ideals with the idea that somehow have not just the right, but the obligation to intrude on so many levels?
Why does my clock say 8:05 pm and the board clock says 7:05 pm??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2010, 08:04:41 PM
Guido,
Ok, here is a seed question on law related - well, actually it is still political -
Ok, two questions...
First, are there actually any law-related issues that aren't political. I have thought about this in the past, and I can't really think of anything, even in the civil, that isn't somehow political. (Personal opinion moment; I believe that anytime we get away from the basics of the Golden rule and the Ten Commandments we start to lose our way in the weeds and we are by my possibly feeble definition, political.)
Second, how do we reconcile the concept of personal liberty, non-intrusive government, and many fine libertarian ideals with the idea that somehow have not just the right, but the obligation to intrude on so many levels?
No way I can help on the second question. As to the first, whenever I am confronted with a "controversial legal issue, let's say the
Citizen's United case which was a huge topic in this forum wherein I defended the Court's decision, I really try to look at it from a "pureness" point of view. Meaning: Does the opinion make sense from a purely legal point of view forgetting (no ignoring) what the societal impact of the opinion might be. In my very humble opinion, I see many folks focusing on the societal impact of an opinion rather than whether the opinion is based on sound judicial jurisprudence. That's why I see (notice I said "I") the law can become political. I will tell you this, the overwhelming number of opinions that are published every day fly well underneath the radar even though they have significant impact on our daily lives.
And that particular one is a good one. It went against many years of precedents and I feel it failed to differentiate between types of organizations. As a lifetime member of the NRA, I have resented the prohibitions of advertising they have endured in the past. To me, that IS a clear impediment of my specific individual right to free speech because that is a voluntary association entered into freely by myself and a few million of my closest friends.
Corporation sponsorship is a whole different thing that I have also resented because of the requirement that I actually spend my time, effort, and in very real terms my money supporting causes/actions that may or may not align with my beliefs. My money is very directly involved because if those tens of millions had not gone to the "cause", a small piece of that might have been available for better wages, bonus, benefits, or even better equipment to do the job. My specific right to free speech is being compromised by the corporation, while I am required to support the free speech of another (usually the CEO or Chairman of the Board). I choose to be an employee for the corporation - not a political booster.
And on top of that, they get a tax deduction that I subsidize further with my taxes.
Yeah, I know - there ain't gonna be no raise - it will go into the stock options for the CEO - at 15% tax.
How can an entity that was conceived and originated as a tool for economic and social advancement be a "person"?
Peter Drucker;
"Business enterprises- and public-service institutions as well - are organs of society. The do not exist for their own sake, but to fulfill a specific social purpose and to satisfy a specific need of society, community, or the individual. That are not ends in themselves, but means. --- None of our institutions exists by itself and is an end in itself. Every one is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. --- Free Enterprise cannot be justified as being good for business. It can be justified only as being good for society."
Me;
People, on the other hand ARE ends in themselves.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 25, 2010, 07:44:12 PM
Power of enforcement was assigned to congress in the Naturalization clause in I believe the 14th amendment.
It is explained here:
http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html
And if you are referring to Oklahoma's HB 1804 immigration bill, according to this news article from February 2010, the 10th circuit court upheld an injuction blocking 2 of the bill's 3 provisions from being signed into law, meaning they will not be enacted.
"The judges said the two provisions that can not now be enforced are likely to be held unconstitutional."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100202_12_0_DENVER90561
I stand corrected, and yep, that would be one of the amendments I have not had the chance to read.
I knew that parts of the oklahoma HB had been struck down by the inferior courts, and still had not been decided by the superior court (if they take it, haven't been following that closely), but also knew that at least a portion of it stood, which would mean that at least on some level that the states could enforce immigration control. However the constitutionality of the Arizona laws still must undergo judicial review before they can be said to be unconstitutional. It is a slippery slope that can really be argued either way because technically it does not regulate immigration, which is what the SCOTUS determined falls into the powers of congress, but regulates how those who are not legal immagrates are treated. Splitting hairs I know, but it gives some wiggle room for laws and will play out in the courts over time.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2010, 08:05:34 PM
Why does my clock say 8:05 pm and the board clock says 7:05 pm??
The forum clock is off. You can sych it with your computer under profile controls
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2010, 06:22:14 PM
I couldn't find the word "immigration" during a find search of the constitution. There is this in Article I, Section 8:
The supremacy clause is ^ that way. ;)
I don't know if Congress specifically declared in title 8 that their law on immigration was specifically intended to pre-empt state law. Also, from my quick scanning of Title 8, it appears to give wide leeway to the executive branch, so understanding the relevant regulations is vital to understanding immigration law as applied.
Guido,
The very few times I have been in a union, I also resented the use of any portion of my dues for political contributions. Both are wrong.
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2010, 07:53:20 PM
Come on azbad, I gave you the constitutional provisions just a few posts above. When I talk politics, I will concede I am obviously conservative. When it comes to the law, though, I really do try to do some research so folks here know what the law is rather than what they think the law is. I really want to have good debate on law-related issues.
Not sure what you are implying... I wrote this and posted it in response to another poster, and while doing so you responded with your own research unbenownst to me.
Just a heads up, sounds like this may be a bill coming to a state near you.....
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12372983 (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12372983)
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 26, 2010, 12:25:49 PM
Just a heads up, sounds like this may be a bill coming to a state near you.....
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12372983 (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12372983)
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/sport-no-one-is-illegal-boycott.html
Echoes of Apartheid:
Boycott the Arizona DiamondbacksEXCERPTS FROM THIS GREAT PIECE OF JOURNALISM!
" This will be the last column I write about the Arizona Diamondbacks in the foreseeable future. For me, they do not exist. They will continue to not exist in my mind as long as the horribly named "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" remains law in Arizona. This law has brought echoes of apartheid to the state.
One Democratic lawmaker has said that it has made Arizona a "laughingstock" but it's difficult to find an ounce of humor in this kind of venal legislation. The law makes it a crime to walk the streets without clutching your passport, green card, visa, or state I.D."
" The Diamondbacks' owners have every right to their politics, and if we policed the political proclivities of every owner's box there might not be anyone left to root for (except for the Green Bay Packers, who don't have an owner's box). But this is different. The law is an open invitation to racial profiling and harassment. The boycott call is coming from inside the state."
" If the owners of the Diamondbacks want to underwrite an ugly edge of bigotry, we should raise our collective sporting fists against them. A boycott is also an expression of solidarity with Diamondback players such as Juan Guitterez, Gerardo Parra, and Rodrigo Lopez. They shouldn't be put in a position where they're cheered on the playing field and then asked for their papers when the uniform comes off."
Counter point?
You don't think they are going to be stopping Canadians, do you?
Quote from: fotd on April 26, 2010, 12:39:06 PM
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/sport-no-one-is-illegal-boycott.html
Echoes of Apartheid:
Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks
EXCERPTS FROM THIS GREAT PIECE OF JOURNALISM!
" This will be the last column I write about the Arizona Diamondbacks in the foreseeable future. For me, they do not exist. They will continue to not exist in my mind as long as the horribly named "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" remains law in Arizona. This law has brought echoes of apartheid to the state.
One Democratic lawmaker has said that it has made Arizona a "laughingstock" but it's difficult to find an ounce of humor in this kind of venal legislation. The law makes it a crime to walk the streets without clutching your passport, green card, visa, or state I.D."
" The Diamondbacks' owners have every right to their politics, and if we policed the political proclivities of every owner's box there might not be anyone left to root for (except for the Green Bay Packers, who don't have an owner's box). But this is different. The law is an open invitation to racial profiling and harassment. The boycott call is coming from inside the state."
" If the owners of the Diamondbacks want to underwrite an ugly edge of bigotry, we should raise our collective sporting fists against them. A boycott is also an expression of solidarity with Diamondback players such as Juan Guitterez, Gerardo Parra, and Rodrigo Lopez. They shouldn't be put in a position where they're cheered on the playing field and then asked for their papers when the uniform comes off."
Counter point?
This from a site that states "Brought to you by the miracle of functioning anarchy" Cute
Ragblog, sounds like a special trash can you'd find in the ladies room.
Quote from: fotd on April 26, 2010, 12:39:06 PM
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/sport-no-one-is-illegal-boycott.html
Echoes of Apartheid:
Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks
EXCERPTS FROM THIS GREAT PIECE OF JOURNALISM!
" This will be the last column I write about the Arizona Diamondbacks in the foreseeable future. For me, they do not exist. They will continue to not exist in my mind as long as the horribly named "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" remains law in Arizona. This law has brought echoes of apartheid to the state.
One Democratic lawmaker has said that it has made Arizona a "laughingstock" but it's difficult to find an ounce of humor in this kind of venal legislation. The law makes it a crime to walk the streets without clutching your passport, green card, visa, or state I.D."
" The Diamondbacks' owners have every right to their politics, and if we policed the political proclivities of every owner's box there might not be anyone left to root for (except for the Green Bay Packers, who don't have an owner's box). But this is different. The law is an open invitation to racial profiling and harassment. The boycott call is coming from inside the state."
" If the owners of the Diamondbacks want to underwrite an ugly edge of bigotry, we should raise our collective sporting fists against them. A boycott is also an expression of solidarity with Diamondback players such as Juan Guitterez, Gerardo Parra, and Rodrigo Lopez. They shouldn't be put in a position where they're cheered on the playing field and then asked for their papers when the uniform comes off."
Counter point?
Find me one pro/semi pro team that has 100% US Citizens on it. Just one thats all I ask.
Come on DBacks. I was expecting an intelligent reply. So, you don't worry about the players. And with the states real estate on it's face a$$ up with little future....oh never mind.
Boycott Arizona. Don't watch their ball teams....don't take vacations there....pi$$ on it. Who needs them? A bad example state of giving us your tired, poor, masses yearning to be free.....soon, we Okies too will be there. And you may wonder why we continue to lose jobs. I want my country back....the one from the 60's and 70's.
You don't think they are going to be stopping Canadians, do you?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 25, 2010, 11:56:51 PM
Not sure what you are implying... I wrote this and posted it in response to another poster, and while doing so you responded with your own research unbenownst to me.
I was not "implying" anything. I was quite clear that I have provided everyone in this forum with the relevant constitutional provisions. Just venting that after taking the time to look up the info you still misstated the law. Apology given.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2010, 08:40:18 PM
And that particular one is a good one. It went against many years of precedents and I feel it failed to differentiate between types of organizations. As a lifetime member of the NRA, I have resented the prohibitions of advertising they have endured in the past. To me, that IS a clear impediment of my specific individual right to free speech because that is a voluntary association entered into freely by myself and a few million of my closest friends.
Corporation sponsorship is a whole different thing that I have also resented because of the requirement that I actually spend my time, effort, and in very real terms my money supporting causes/actions that may or may not align with my beliefs. My money is very directly involved because if those tens of millions had not gone to the "cause", a small piece of that might have been available for better wages, bonus, benefits, or even better equipment to do the job. My specific right to free speech is being compromised by the corporation, while I am required to support the free speech of another (usually the CEO or Chairman of the Board). I choose to be an employee for the corporation - not a political booster.
And on top of that, they get a tax deduction that I subsidize further with my taxes.
Yeah, I know - there ain't gonna be no raise - it will go into the stock options for the CEO - at 15% tax.
How can an entity that was conceived and originated as a tool for economic and social advancement be a "person"?
Peter Drucker;
"Business enterprises- and public-service institutions as well - are organs of society. The do not exist for their own sake, but to fulfill a specific social purpose and to satisfy a specific need of society, community, or the individual. That are not ends in themselves, but means. --- None of our institutions exists by itself and is an end in itself. Every one is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. --- Free Enterprise cannot be justified as being good for business. It can be justified only as being good for society."
Me;
People, on the other hand ARE ends in themselves.
I am not ignoring your point, just that I laid out my case throughout this thread already:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14896.0
Guido,
I know. Reply optional. That post was just listed as my overall thoughts on it. I separate organizations into their categories.
http://restorefairness.org/2010/04/snl-takes-on-sb1070-urgency-for-reform-more-than-ever/
This is not about immigration. The GOP's way of controlling votes. The demographics are shifting away from the Repiglicans. Disenfranchise the one's you can't get to vote for you. Do Republicans really believe in democracy?
Quote from: fotd on April 26, 2010, 08:53:05 PM
http://restorefairness.org/2010/04/snl-takes-on-sb1070-urgency-for-reform-more-than-ever/
Do Republicans really believe in democracy?
Of course they don't. Just look at this loser laying down on the job rather than standing up for democracy:
(http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/3198/FE_DA_080117mccain_pow.jpg)
The maverick with PTDS? Today, he's nutty....
a martyr for racism?
Boycott his state (both his state of mind and his state)!
Quote from: fotd on April 26, 2010, 09:01:29 PM
The maverick with PTDS? Today, he's nutty....
a martyr for racism?
Boycott his state (both his state of mind and his state)!
PTDS:
http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/06/18/22954-ptds-serves-as-surveillance-force-multiplier/
Good catch....PTSD. Man you're good at minuscule detail. It's the big picture you miss.
fotd,
Canadians aren't coming here by the millions. (Remember the wordpress site you noted?) Illegally. Criminally. By definition.
And neither party has done a thing to fix the problem. Bush I had the first amnesty. Clinton did nothing. Baby Bush also did nothing.
Have two family members who are "imports" from other countries (not Latin America) and the deplorable, disgusting state of affairs today is a grotesque mockery of fairness, rule of law, or any other rational thought. Coming here legally is truly difficult. And we have intentionally with forethought contributed...no, demanded that illegals be allowed to come here to work for cheap. As I have noted repeatedly, here and elsewhere, there is a simple solution, but no will or desire by the powers that be - the ones issuing the invitation - to stop illegal migration.
Remember a few years ago the John Pickle company situation where this disgusting, despicable pig (John Pickle) had the men from India imported with lies, deception and just flat out despicable behavior. And then kept them locked in a cage - his factory - for over a year, literally as slaves? Wow, what promise the "American Way" holds....
And yet, this most grotesque of criminals is still wandering around loose somewhere.
We let corporate America off the hook completely. If there were prison and large fines, the problem would disappear in weeks, if not days.
Quote from: fotd on April 26, 2010, 09:01:29 PM
The maverick with PTDS? Today, he's nutty....
a martyr for racism?
Boycott his state (both his state of mind and his state)!
Grow up. Your rants of racism are wearing thin. Almost as thin as your skin.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2010, 09:28:05 PM
Grow up. Your rants of racism are wearing thin. Almost as thin as your skin.
An intelligent come back, Pompous Conanus. Just fighting fire with fire? They aren't rants. They are mirrored comments in some cases. As a descendant of immigrants, I do not see this as a "problem" except for republicans. That's about numbers and it's not about race...So think about my points before you play 8 year old.
Ok, kids...you both get time out. Go to your corners and don't have any fun while you think about why you are there!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2010, 09:40:20 PM
Ok, kids...you both get time out. Go to your corners and don't have any fun while you think about why you are there!
What about me?
Quote from: fotd on April 26, 2010, 09:36:57 PM
An intelligent come back, Pompous Conanus. Just fighting fire with fire? They aren't rants. They are mirrored comments in some cases. As a descendant of immigrants, I do not see this as a "problem" except for republicans. That's about numbers and it's not about race...So think about my points before you play 8 year old.
You attempt to intimidate by calling people racist & intolerant. Other than the Native Americans we are all descended from immigrants. No one's journey is any more or less remarkable than others. Yes some immigrants endured more hardship on the road to here.
I'm a descendant of immigrants too. How does that make your incessant rant about numbers or race relevant again?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2010, 09:49:26 PM
You attempt to intimidate by calling people racist & intolerant. Other than the Native Americans we are all descended from immigrants. No one's journey is any more or less remarkable than others. Yes some immigrants endured more hardship on the road to here.
I'm a descendant of immigrants too. How does that make your incessant rant about numbers or race relevant again?
ummm... technically the "Native Americans" are immigrants too, just from further back in history, and having first claim.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2010, 09:49:26 PM
You attempt to intimidate by calling people racist & intolerant. Other than the Native Americans we are all descended from immigrants. No one's journey is any more or less remarkable than others. Yes some immigrants endured more hardship on the road to here.
I'm a descendant of immigrants too. How does that make your incessant rant about numbers or race relevant again?
You choose to ignore my posts which differ from this completely and instead try to corral me into a bad person picture. The tone of your lecture seems intoxicated.
Well, maybe the remaining gang will buy into your tactic. It lack's the thinking man's defense.
Here is an MSNBC Headline on the Arizona law: "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant". I guess there are law-abiding illegals out there.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/arizona-immigration-law/2010/04/26/msnbc-newsflash-ariz-law-makes-it-crime-be-illegal-immigrant
Kinda reminds me of this thread:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13251.0
Quote from: fotd on April 26, 2010, 10:00:49 PM
You choose to ignore my posts which differ from this completely and instead try to coral me into a bad person picture. The tone of your lecture seems intoxicated.
Well, maybe the remaining gang will buy into your tactic. It lack's the thinking man's defense.
Coral:
(http://soe.ucdavis.edu/ms0809/180Sec1/WongJ/Web/coral.jpg)
Yes, Guido, you too. Get to your corner. Make it a threesome....
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2010, 10:05:56 PM
Here is an MSNBC Headline on the Arizona law: "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant". I guess there are law-abiding illegals out there.
As I recall, under federal law the crime is crossing the border, not being here. (although being here is
evidence of the crime, it is not the crime)
Quote from: nathanm on April 26, 2010, 10:13:46 PM
As I recall, under federal law the crime is crossing the border, not being here. (although being here is evidence of the crime, it is not the crime)
Over-staying a visa or not having a visa or other valid immigration documents to start with is illegal aside from subsequent criminal acts on the part of some like tax fraud, Medicare/Medicaid fraud, possessing bogus documentation, creating a fictitious SSN, etc.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2010, 10:23:08 PM
Over-staying a visa or not having a visa or other valid immigration documents to start with is illegal aside from subsequent criminal acts on the part of some like tax fraud, Medicare/Medicaid fraud, possessing bogus documentation, creating a fictitious SSN, etc.
They're
all guilty of that?
Wow! Conan - we agree on something! Did hell freeze over last night and I missed it???
Being present here without proper permission is very definitely illegal. It just isn't enforced well.
And yeah, fotd, most of them are guilty of that. Because they can't get legal papers, since they are here illegally. As in criminally.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2010, 10:23:08 PM
Over-staying a visa or not having a visa or other valid immigration documents to start with is illegal aside from subsequent criminal acts on the part of some like tax fraud, Medicare/Medicaid fraud, possessing bogus documentation, creating a fictitious SSN, etc.
Yes, we do essentially force people who commit the crime of illegal entry to also commit other crimes to remain here, although by no means does everyone. It's kinda ridiculous we make it so hard for them to pay taxes. They pretty much are left with a choice between taking money under the table or using a false SSN. That is the sort of crime that could be eliminated by simply changing the laws. Their working, in and of itself does not pose any threat, so those laws only serve to enable employers to exploit illegal immigrants. More effective law would penalize employers, or even better liberalize temporary work visas.
In any event, mere presence in this country is not criminal in and of itself. Unless it's somewhere other than Title 8.
Quote from: fotd on April 26, 2010, 10:00:49 PM
You choose to ignore my posts which differ from this completely and instead try to corral me into a bad person picture. The tone of your lecture seems intoxicated.
Well, maybe the remaining gang will buy into your tactic. It lack's the thinking man's defense.
Wrong guess. If anyone is intoxicated based on the posts it's you. In regards made by others on a different thread today, I'm trying to steer the conversation somewhere positive. I'm training right now no alcohol for me. Just steroids & blood doping /sarc
You can send a love letter to Gov. Jan Brewer and tell her what you think about the Arizona GOP's attempt to swipe the November election here: http://action.restorefairness.org/o/6023/t/7236/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2752
Don't know about section 8, but it IS illegal to be here without valid visa, green card, passport, etc. And jail time can be used as enforcement, but never is if Latin American and working in agriculture, construction, family childcare (nanny) or housekeeping.
All the jobs many citizens won't do, so we invite people from the south to do them.
Quote from: nathanm on April 26, 2010, 10:29:33 PM
Yes, we do essentially force people who commit the crime of illegal entry to also commit other crimes to remain here, although by no means does everyone. It's kinda ridiculous we make it so hard for them to pay taxes. They pretty much are left with a choice between taking money under the table or using a false SSN. That is the sort of crime that could be eliminated by simply changing the laws. Their working, in and of itself does not pose any threat, so those laws only serve to enable employers to exploit illegal immigrants. More effective law would penalize employers, or even better liberalize temporary work visas.
In any event, mere presence in this country is not criminal in and of itself. Unless it's somewhere other than Title 8.
Don't you think that's a bit like saying the police *forced* a robbery suspect to run a red light and forced him to hit another vehicle (hit & run) which killed two people (negligent manslaughter) all because the criminal was in fear of being caught a punished for his original crime which was holding up a Shell station for $200?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2010, 10:39:00 PM
Don't know about section 8, but it IS illegal to be here without valid visa, green card, passport, etc. And jail time can be used as enforcement, but never is if Latin American and working in agriculture, construction, family childcare (nanny) or housekeeping.
Please provide a citation. As best I can tell, it is criminal to enter improperly, falsify documents, or transport someone illegally across the border, but other than that, you're pretty much just deportable, and can only be jailed for the purpose of deportation.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2010, 10:41:49 PM
Don't you think that's a bit like saying the police *forced* a robbery suspect to run a red light and forced him to hit another vehicle (hit & run) which killed two people (negligent manslaughter) all because the criminal was in fear of being caught a punished for his original crime which was holding up a Shell station for $200?
Not really. People must work to eat. People need not rob a Shell to that end. Moreover, there's a big difference morally between illegally entering the country and robbing a business. Penalties should be commensurate with the harm to society.
Also, what prevents illegal aliens from paying taxes in an above-board way is government policy, not fear of apprehension. It's simply not possible for an alien to get the correct numbers that allow them to do so. It's sort of like back in the 30s when they first made marijuana illegal by requiring those who possessed it to purchase a tax stamp, then refusing to issue any such stamps.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2010, 10:39:00 PM
Don't know about section 8, but it IS illegal to be here without valid visa, green card, passport, etc. And jail time can be used as enforcement, but never is if Latin American and working in agriculture, construction, family childcare (nanny) or housekeeping.
All the jobs many citizens won't do, so we invite people from the south to do them.
From the east and the west to the north and south.....they come from all over.
Based on your attitude, you should fix your sensory deprivation. Have a Marshall's. It's so obvious,Trainy.
Quote from: nathanm on April 26, 2010, 10:42:18 PM
...but other than that, you're pretty much just deportable, and can only be jailed for the purpose of deportation.
I've been under the impression that someone had to do something illegal to be subject to jail and/or deportation. If it is legal to just be here, how is deportation justified?
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 26, 2010, 10:49:03 PM
I've been under the impression that someone had to do something illegal to be subject to jail and/or deportation. If it is legal to just be here, how is deportation justified?
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 26, 2010, 10:49:03 PM
If it is legal to just be here, how is deportation justified?
It's civil deportation, not criminal. Your question is like asking how it is justified that those who hold a visa (and even lawful permanent residents) can be denied entry at the whim of the ICE officer at the port of entry. That's the law. Read title 8, it's rather enlightening.
Quote from: guido911 on April 21, 2010, 06:04:37 PM
First, the legislature passes the toughest immigration law in the country, now its house passes a bill requiring Obama to produce a birth certificate if he expects to get on the ballot in 2012:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/21/national/a152843D73.DTL&type=politics
Good for Arizona for passing the anti-illegal immigration bill. I am sure all the pro-illegals and race parasites will claim that this will lead to racial profiling even though a lot of officers in Arizona of hispanic decent.
Although the birth certificate bill is aimed at anyone wishing to run for president. I do not see it satisfying the conspiracy loons seeing how they won't accept an offical copy that has been verified. So they loons will probably just claim Obama just ink washed a real birth certificate and slapped his name on it.
Racist roots of Arizona Law....
Gotcha yet?
So. . .after looking at all of the outrage, and the hysteria, I read the bill. Here's the passage that has caused this uproar.
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency 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."
I've underlined a few important things.
Lawfull Contact means that the officer cannot just stop someone unless their is a lawfull reason to do so.
Reasonable Suspicion means that the officer must have reason to suspect the person is not a legal citizen i.e. no ability to produce identification, or the officer is presented with false identification.
Reasonable attempt to determine immigration status means that the officer will most likely ask the person for valid identification or obtain evidence to the contrary.
Once it is determined that someone is illegal, that person is turned over to federal immigration officers. The bill has nothing to do with deportation by state officials, or imprisonment or anything else advertised by the media Bozos (no offence to Bozo).
The bill does not condone or promote racial profiling, in fact it re-emphasizes current federal and state laws against profiling. Officers are prohibited from stopping people based solely on race or color.
The only thing this bill does is make it legal for an officer to ask a suspect if he/she is a citizen of the United States. It only gives the officer power to contact federal authorities if evidence of a federal crime exists.
I think the main problem is that people didn't read the bill, instead they listened to the inflammatory media.
I'm assuming one of the varied reasons an OHP, TPD, or TCSD deputy wants to see my driver's license is to help determine my immigration status if I'm stopped. I don't see anything heinous about the Arizona law, other than the whole thing about eating little babies. I'd say the "racial profiling" thing is way over-blown here. Besides, it would be ethnic profiling, would it not?
The "lawful contact" could be "reasonable suspicion." In other words, the language seems to state that the enforcement officer could use his suspicion as the reason to make lawful contact and then challenge the person's citizenship.
And, sure, we can call it ethnic profiling if we want . . . but it's still profiling, yo.
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2010, 10:49:03 AM
The "lawful contact" could be "reasonable suspicion." In other words, the language seems to state that the enforcement officer could use his suspicion as the reason to make lawful contact and then challenge the person's citizenship.
I think this puts the kabosh on your point: "Lawfull Contact means that the officer cannot just stop someone unless their is a lawfull reason to do so"
Same thing they do every day with speeders, suspected ticket scofflaws, etc. It sounds, from what Gaspar posted, that it affords protection
against profiling. So long as an officer asks every "lawful contact" about their immigration or citizenship status, there's no room to call it discrimination so long as everyone is subject to this line of questioning.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 10:11:29 AM
So. . .after looking at all of the outrage, and the hysteria, I read the bill. Here's the passage that has caused this uproar.
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency 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."
I've underlined a few important things.
Lawfull Contact means that the officer cannot just stop someone unless their is a lawfull reason to do so.
Reasonable Suspicion means that the officer must have reason to suspect the person is not a legal citizen i.e. no ability to produce identification, or the officer is presented with false identification.
Reasonable attempt to determine immigration status means that the officer will most likely ask the person for valid identification or obtain evidence to the contrary.
Once it is determined that someone is illegal, that person is turned over to federal immigration officers. The bill has nothing to do with deportation by state officials, or imprisonment or anything else advertised by the media Bozos (no offence to Bozo).
The bill does not condone or promote racial profiling, in fact it re-emphasizes current federal and state laws against profiling. Officers are prohibited from stopping people based solely on race or color.
The only thing this bill does is make it legal for an officer to ask a suspect if he/she is a citizen of the United States. It only gives the officer power to contact federal authorities if evidence of a federal crime exists.
I think the main problem is that people didn't read the bill, instead they listened to the inflammatory media.
The fact is pro-illegal oppose anything that will curd illegal immigration and label racist,compare it to Nazi Germany and all kinds of other nonsense. Pro-illegals do not have a leg to stand on in the illegal immigration debate so they have to resort to lies.
Did you say "curd"?
(http://www.leekangkoog.org/images/cottageCheese800.jpg)
It the special slow setting kind used to make long lasting dividers between the street and sidewalk.
Quote from: jamesrage on April 28, 2010, 12:02:32 PM
The fact is pro-illegal oppose anything that will curd illegal immigration and label racist,compare it to Nazi Germany and all kinds of other nonsense. Pro-illegals do not have a leg to stand on in the illegal immigration debate so they have to resort to lies.
The federal government should just do their job and this stuff wouldn't be needed. There is something to be said though for people being asked for their papers in the streets.
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2010, 10:49:03 AM
The "lawful contact" could be "reasonable suspicion." In other words, the language seems to state that the enforcement officer could use his suspicion as the reason to make lawful contact and then challenge the person's citizenship.
And, sure, we can call it ethnic profiling if we want . . . but it's still profiling, yo.
That's not new to the law. That already exists. An officer can make "lawful contact" with you for any reason. He can walk up to you and say "May I see some ID."
This law simply changes what he can do after that point. . .If you say "NO" or "I don't have any," or give him false identification, he can then ask about your immigration status, and if you can produce no documentation indicating that you are here legally he can refer you to federal immigration officers to determine your status. In the past, he had to set you free unless you were suspected of committing a crime under his jurisdiction.
You can slice this several ways, but all it does is make federal law more enforceable.
Just reading a story (http://"http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1812") on this, and here is a nice little excerpt from it that counters what Gaspers take on it
Quote
Police can detain and demand papers from anyone they have "lawful contact" with, but since the law defines illegal immigrants as trespassing when in any part of the United States, this gives the police the freedom to question people who are otherwise not breaking the law or engaging in suspicious activity. Those found to be in the state illegally can be thrown in jail for six months and fined $2,500, a harsher penalty than the federal punishment of deportation.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 28, 2010, 12:37:56 PM
The federal government should just do their job and this stuff wouldn't be needed. There is something to be said though for people being asked for their papers in the streets.
I agree. However, we have to engage in some cross-over and cooperation between federal and state law enforcement. Otherwise we would have to grow our federal law enforcement organization to duplicate state efforts. It would be, and to some extent already is, a huge waste of resources.
If local officers were simply given the power to help enforce federal law in this matter, we would be on the road to more legal immigrants, and fewer illegal aliens.
The racial profiling issue is a childish logic trap in this case.
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 01:09:44 PM
Just reading a story (http://"http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1812") on this, and here is a nice little excerpt from it that counters what Gaspers take on it
Yeah I read that a few days ago in the AP, and expanded upon in Huff and other sites, however in the actual bill the only fines they are subject to is Jail costs and an initial assessment of $500 (and twice that if a repeat offender) if they are found to be in violation by an authorized federal agent. Personally I think they should be required to pay their transportation back to their country of origin too. Any monetary fine is silly. Do you think we can collect this? Perhaps we should send them home with an invoice. ;)
There is no mention what so ever of 6 months detention. It's very straight forward. I have a PDF of the bill if anyone is interested. It's a quick read at 17 pages.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 01:36:35 PM
Yeah I read that a few days ago in the AP, and expanded upon in Huff and other sites, however in the actual bill the only fines they are subject to is Jail costs and an initial assessment of $500 (and twice that if a repeat offender) if they are found to be in violation by an authorized federal agent. Personally I think they should be required to pay their transportation back to their country of origin too. Any monetary fine is silly. Do you think we can collect this? Perhaps we should send them home with an invoice. ;)
There is no mention what so ever of 6 months detention. It's very straight forward. I have a PDF of the bill if anyone is interested. It's a quick read at 17 pages.
I think the six months thing is from preverting the trasspassing law, and not actually having anything to do with this one.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 01:14:36 PM
The racial profiling issue is a childish logic trap in this case.
Who will they stop and search if not Hispanics? The bill was created to address illegal immigration across the Mexican border. It's not like the Vietnamese boat people are streaming across the desert in skiffs, are they?
And if not race or color, what will the criteria be for stopping someone who "looks" illegal? Shifty eyes? Unkempt hair? Shabby dresser? Personally, I'd stop anyone wearing a White Sox cap, but that's my own biases coming out.
The problem with the law is that it's overwhelmed by its political context. it says one thing but the fact of its existence contradicts it.
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2010, 01:55:04 PM
Who will they stop and search if not Hispanics? The bill was created to address illegal immigration across the Mexican border. It's not like the Vietnamese boat people are streaming across the desert in skiffs, are they?
And if not race or color, what will the criteria be for stopping someone who "looks" illegal? Shifty eyes? Unkempt hair? Shabby dresser? Personally, I'd stop anyone wearing a White Sox cap, but that's my own biases coming out.
The problem with the law is that it's overwhelmed by its political context. it says one thing but the fact of its existence contradicts it.
So an exception to illegal immigration should be made in Arizona because the vast majority of them are of a specific decent, therefore making it racial?
The bill says reasonable suspicion, not "looks" illegal. To really hold up in court a cop will have to show what the suspicion was, and it will have to be something viable. Something along the lines of "I pulled him over for speeding, and he was unable to produce license, insurance, or registration for the vehicle," or "after breaking up the disturbance I collected identification from those involved and found this one to appear to be a forgery because the state seal was wrong on it". Doesn't mean that is how it will actually happen, but how it is supposed to happen.
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2010, 01:55:04 PM
Who will they stop and search if not Hispanics? The bill was created to address illegal immigration across the Mexican border. It's not like the Vietnamese boat people are streaming across the desert in skiffs, are they?
And if not race or color, what will the criteria be for stopping someone who "looks" illegal? Shifty eyes? Unkempt hair? Shabby dresser? Personally, I'd stop anyone wearing a White Sox cap, but that's my own biases coming out.
The problem with the law is that it's overwhelmed by its political context. it says one thing but the fact of its existence contradicts it.
You do have a point. I assume that a very large percentage of illegal aliens from Mexico are Hispanic.
If I were a legal immigrant who worked hard to go through the proper channels to get my work papers or citizenship, I would be proud to display that information to an officer if asked. I would also be quite angry at those who choose to sully the reputation of an entire culture of hard working people by breaking the law.
When I'm driving home at night and have to go through a sobriety check stop, I'm thrilled to provide my license and insurance to the officers and I thank them for keeping me safe.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 01:14:36 PM
I agree. However, we have to engage in some cross-over and cooperation between federal and state law enforcement.
That isn't exactly what the law says, however given that the states end up paying the burden they should have the right to question people when arrested and get them deported if they aren't legal.
While a bit over the top, here is a joke that someone posted on FB that does have a few valid points to it.
Quote
I Am Moving Can You Help?
Dear President Obama:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. Into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.
I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely ice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to theU.S. From Mexico .
I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely. Thank you so much for your kind help.
You're the man!
Here is something else that seems to be making the spotlight that is related... loosely
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 02:18:32 PM
I would be proud to display that information to an officer if asked.
I like your obsequiousness. For someone who claims government tyranny, you sure seem not to mind it.
Would you also be proud to be carrying your green card with you and get your wallet stolen. What would you do if you ended up having an encounter with a police officer prior to getting it replaced? (which, by the way, is a very long and arduous process that often takes months)
I don't think you'd enjoy sitting in jail while they figured out whether or not you were legally present. Heck, you might end up like one of those citizens who spent months or years waiting to be deported because ICE didn't believe them when they claimed they were citizens. (this happens pretty regularly)
custosnox, I could go through that "FB" thing and debunk it almost to a point, but I think you can do your own research and find out that illegal immigrants do pay taxes, do pay for social security they never get to use, and only rarely get any sort of welfare or subsidy. (aside from visits to the ER and their children, who are often citizens, getting to go to public school like everyone else) It helps to keep in mind that the vast majority of illegal immigrants didn't actually cross the border illegally. Most of them came in on a temporary visa and never left. One part of legally immigrating is that you can't go on the public dole without getting deported.
Ironically, a lot of the things in that list that the author is complaining about are caused directly by us making it impossible for illegal immigrants to do. We make it impossible to get licensed, so auto insurance is priced out of reach of the vast majority. We make it impossible to get the necessary numbers to pay taxes, so they either don't pay them at all or (more commonly) make up a SSN. Then they end up both overpaying in income tax every year because they don't get a refund, yet we complain about them not paying taxes.
Moreover, a bunch of that list is just racist in general. It assumes that all people who don't speak english well are illegal immigrants. Nevermind that it's nearly impossible for someone over the age of 40 to learn another language well enough to speak it without a thick accent, making it sound to a lot of people like they don't speak it well.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 02:18:32 PM
You do have a point. I assume that a very large percentage of illegal aliens from Mexico are Hispanic.
If I were a legal immigrant who worked hard to go through the proper channels to get my work papers or citizenship, I would be proud to display that information to an officer if asked. I would also be quite angry at those who choose to sully the reputation of an entire culture of hard working people by breaking the law.
When I'm driving home at night and have to go through a sobriety check stop, I'm thrilled to provide my license and insurance to the officers and I thank them for keeping me safe.
Basically your license is your proof of citizenship, I don't have a problem with it either. Why would any legal citizen, resident alien, or guest worker object to showing their proof of citizenship, visa, or green card? I don't go anywhere without my passport when I travel abroad so I can properly identify myself as a visitor of that country should I be asked for any legal reason. Why do we think we need to lower the standard here. It's considered a matter of national security in virtually every other nation.
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2010, 03:48:22 PM
I like your obsequiousness. For someone who claims government tyranny, you sure seem not to mind it.
Would you also be proud to be carrying your green card with you and get your wallet stolen. What would you do if you ended up having an encounter with a police officer prior to getting it replaced? (which, by the way, is a very long and arduous process that often takes months)
I don't think you'd enjoy sitting in jail while they figured out whether or not you were legally present. Heck, you might end up like one of those citizens who spent months or years waiting to be deported because ICE didn't believe them when they claimed they were citizens. (this happens pretty regularly)
Don't make things up. You are fingerprinted when issued a green card. Takes around 10-20 minutes to verify dactyloscopy green card status.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2010, 03:57:20 PM
Basically your license is your proof of citizenship, I don't have a problem with it either. Why would any legal citizen, resident alien, or guest worker object to showing their proof of citizenship, visa, or green card? I don't go anywhere without my passport when I travel abroad so I can properly identify myself as a visitor of that country should I be asked for any legal reason. Why do we think we need to lower the standard here. It's considered a matter of national security in virtually every other nation.
You know, even 30 years ago people would have called you a "frakking commie" for that attitude. 65 or 70 years ago they would have called you a "god damned Nazi". "Papers, please" is something that authoritarian countries do, not countries that believe in the fundamental freedom of movement as we do. What next? We set up immigration stations at each state border?
Speaking of your license being your proof of citizenship, the law specifically states that
Arizona driver's licenses are proof of citizenship. What if I go to Arizona and get asked for my papers? I can't say I generally take my passport on my travels around our nation. Under Arizona law, I will have no proof of citizenship. Will I be detained until someone can supply proof of my citizenship? Probably not, unless they're focusing on Canadians that day (I'm white as a sheet). What if my SO's father (who is a citizen, but is brown and has a pretty thick accent) ends up in the same situation?
Also, reasonable suspicion merely means that the officer can articulate some reason for believing you are illegally present. It doesn't have to be a good reason, or even very understandable to others, just an articulable reason, at least under federal law. "He's brown" would actually suffice, although it might get the law overturned as unconstitutional on an as applied basis (federal law outlaws racism, the supremacy clause prevents state law from overriding federal law).
Gaspar, you'd be OK with being detained for 20 minutes (probably longer, given that you're not being detained by ICE agents, but local police)?
Moreover, I don't recall being fingerprinted as a natural born citizen. There are a lot of natural born citizens of Mexican descent in the southwest. Hell, a bunch of the native americans around there could easily be mistaken for Mexican. Do we have some sort of magic citizenship detector I don't know about?
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2010, 03:48:22 PM
Ironically, a lot of the things in that list that the author is complaining about are caused directly by us making it impossible for illegal immigrants to do. We make it impossible to get licensed, so auto insurance is priced out of reach of the vast majority. We make it impossible to get the necessary numbers to pay taxes, so they either don't pay them at all or (more commonly) make up a SSN. Then they end up both overpaying in income tax every year because they don't get a refund, yet we complain about them not paying taxes.
Why is it impossible? Because these are rights given to
legal immigrants and citizens. Illegal means illegal. What is so hard to grasp about this. It's not a matter of racism, that's akin to saying our national immigration laws are racist. The simple matter is there are people in this country who want immigration laws enforced because they serve a purpose in protecting legal U.S. citizens and to help limit the pressure put on social services. Yes, we all know some illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes (that's only done by identity fraud, fyi) and direct welfare or ssi checks are not handed out to illegal immigrants. If you don't have some method to deal with orderly immigration you wind up with social and criminal issues which are undesireable in most societies.
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2010, 04:11:38 PM
You know, even 30 years ago people would have called you a "frakking commie" for that attitude. 65 or 70 years ago they would have called you a "god damned Nazi". "Papers, please" is something that authoritarian countries do, not countries that believe in the fundamental freedom of movement as we do. What next? We set up immigration stations at each state border?
Speaking of your license being your proof of citizenship, the law specifically states that Arizona driver's licenses are proof of citizenship. What if I go to Arizona and get asked for my papers? I can't say I generally take my passport on my travels around our nation. Under Arizona law, I will have no proof of citizenship. Will I be detained until someone can supply proof of my citizenship? Probably not, unless they're focusing on Canadians that day (I'm white as a sheet). What if my SO's father (who is a citizen, but is brown and has a pretty thick accent) ends up in the same situation?
Also, reasonable suspicion merely means that the officer can articulate some reason for believing you are illegally present. It doesn't have to be a good reason, or even very understandable to others, just an articulable reason, at least under federal law. "He's brown" would actually suffice, although it might get the law overturned as unconstitutional on an as applied basis (federal law outlaws racism, the supremacy clause prevents state law from overriding federal law).
Gaspar, you'd be OK with being detained for 20 minutes (probably longer, given that you're not being detained by ICE agents, but local police)?
Moreover, I don't recall being fingerprinted as a natural born citizen. There are a lot of natural born citizens of Mexican descent in the southwest. Hell, a bunch of the native americans around there could easily be mistaken for Mexican. Do we have some sort of magic citizenship detector I don't know about?
Really? I was stopped for speeding 30 years ago and never thought once about challenging the trooper who wanted my license. Next time you get stopped, tell the Trooper or other LEO he's a jackboot Nazi and see what happens.
You are all over the hyperbole today, aren't you? An Arizona officer will accept your state issued license as a proof of U.S. citizenship, I'm quite certain of that. Why are you defending illegal acts in the first place?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2010, 04:22:09 PM
Why are you defending illegal acts in the first place?
Well, for one, mere presence here isn't criminal, federally. Secondly, I think our immigration law is causing more problems than it is solving, specifically regarding the whole taxation thing and the licensing/insurance thing. The Arizona law at bar is even worse. US Citizens should not be forced to prove their citizenship in our own country. That's what's jackbooted about it.
I have no problem with licensing drivers, so I don't consider it an unreasonable request when an officer asks me for my license. I would consider it unreasonable if I were merely a passenger in a vehicle that had been stopped.
Furthermore, there are quite a few states that don't now require or still have licenses issued prior to the requirement to prove citizenship to obtain a driver's license. If you hail from one of those states, happen to look brown, and don't have your passport with you, what are you to do when an Arizona officer requests that you prove your citizenship?
I find it shocking that the ones here who most go on about personal freedom seem to be wholly in favor of being forced to prove their citizenship at any time of an officer's choosing.
nathanm,
Cool down dude. No matter what the media wants you to think there is nothing alarming in this legislation. No new laws or criminal penalties. It's just giving local police the power to recognize federal law, and refer criminals to federal authority.
It seem that it's the federal law that you have a problem with.
Strictly speaking Arizona drivers licenses are not proof of citizenship. They have nothing to do with citizenship, and no where in Arizona law does it state that they are.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 04:51:01 PM
Cool down dude. No matter what the media wants you to think there is nothing alarming in this legislation. No new laws or criminal penalties. It's just giving local police the power to recognize federal law, and refer criminals to federal authority.
...
Strictly speaking Arizona drivers licenses are not proof of citizenship. They have nothing to do with citizenship, and no where in Arizona law does it state that they are.
Perhaps you should read the bill before deciding what it is that it does. (it does actually extend the criminal offense of trespassing to any illegal immigrant that is on any public or private land in the state of Arizona, it also creates new penalties for those who "harbor" illegal immigrants)
And yes, under this new law, an Arizona driver's license is indeed accepted as proof of legal presence in the US:
Quote
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
I'm wondering how exactly your usual officer on the street will verify #4.
The bill alarms me, but that may be because my SO and her family are immigrants and I don't want to see this sort of junk spread across the nation like the cancer that it is.
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2010, 03:48:22 PM
I like your obsequiousness. For someone who claims government tyranny, you sure seem not to mind it.
Would you also be proud to be carrying your green card with you and get your wallet stolen. What would you do if you ended up having an encounter with a police officer prior to getting it replaced? (which, by the way, is a very long and arduous process that often takes months)
I don't think you'd enjoy sitting in jail while they figured out whether or not you were legally present. Heck, you might end up like one of those citizens who spent months or years waiting to be deported because ICE didn't believe them when they claimed they were citizens. (this happens pretty regularly)
custosnox, I could go through that "FB" thing and debunk it almost to a point, but I think you can do your own research and find out that illegal immigrants do pay taxes, do pay for social security they never get to use, and only rarely get any sort of welfare or subsidy. (aside from visits to the ER and their children, who are often citizens, getting to go to public school like everyone else) It helps to keep in mind that the vast majority of illegal immigrants didn't actually cross the border illegally. Most of them came in on a temporary visa and never left. One part of legally immigrating is that you can't go on the public dole without getting deported.
Ironically, a lot of the things in that list that the author is complaining about are caused directly by us making it impossible for illegal immigrants to do. We make it impossible to get licensed, so auto insurance is priced out of reach of the vast majority. We make it impossible to get the necessary numbers to pay taxes, so they either don't pay them at all or (more commonly) make up a SSN. Then they end up both overpaying in income tax every year because they don't get a refund, yet we complain about them not paying taxes.
Moreover, a bunch of that list is just racist in general. It assumes that all people who don't speak english well are illegal immigrants. Nevermind that it's nearly impossible for someone over the age of 40 to learn another language well enough to speak it without a thick accent, making it sound to a lot of people like they don't speak it well.
There is a reason that I said it was over the top, and that it had a
few valid points. My personal opinion on the matter is that if you want to be here, you should do so in a legal manner. Counter-point to that though is that we should have a better immigration system so that those that want to come here to work, attend school and have a better chance at a better life can do so without going through every trick in a three ring circus to do so.
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 05:24:29 PM
Counter-point to that though is that we should have a better immigration system so that those that want to come here to work, attend school and have a better chance at a better life can do so without going through every trick in a three ring circus to do so.
That is exactly what I'm trying, very poorly, to communicate. The Arizona law just makes it worse, IMO. Allowing more people to come here legally would reduce the number of illegal crossings, freeing up manpower and making it easier to police the border against those who choose to cross illegally. If we redirect all the people who aren't human traffickers and drug smugglers through the official checkpoints, those that choose to cross illegally will likely be made up almost entirely of the sort of people we have a strong interest in keeping out.
I've come to realize that "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" is a reasonably appropriate stance to take regarding some of the things we have declared illegal that we still can't seem to get a handle on despite ever-increasing enforcement efforts. At some point we have to realize that what we're doing isn't working and try something different. After all, it has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 02:18:32 PM
If I were a legal immigrant who worked hard to go through the proper channels to get my work papers or citizenship, I would be proud to display that information to an officer if asked. I would also be quite angry at those who choose to sully the reputation of an entire culture of hard working people by breaking the law.
I hear this quite a bit and I think it's a fallacy; I think it's an imposition of conservative values on an issue that doesn't necessarily support it. I say that because it's fairly self evident that Hispanic communities in cities across America readily accept both legal and illegal immigrants. There's no organized Hispanic movement to self-purge the ones who've done it right from the ones who haven't. I think this is because Hispanic communities are still built around extended families, and many families have members living in either country. (You hear about the dollars that the undocumented folks take back to their families in Mexico? That's exactly the point.) There are generations of families that straddle the border, and some members of some families have made careers out of going back and forth.
I know there's a temptation to be hardcore about it, to say it's a flat out law and order issue and you're either legal or illegal, full stop. And in one sense, that's correct. According to the law, unless you fulfill a certain number of criteria, you are illegal. Ok, got it. At the same time, we're obviously dealing with a societal phenomenon too, a crime that is bigger and more interconnected than murder or robbery (for instance). It's a complicated crime, as much as we wish it weren't, and reducing it simply to A & B keeps us from dealing with the cause(s) of it.
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2010, 10:35:21 PM
I hear this quite a bit and I think it's a fallacy; I think it's an imposition of conservative values on an issue that doesn't necessarily support it. I say that because it's fairly self evident that Hispanic communities in cities across America readily accept both legal and illegal immigrants. There's no organized Hispanic movement to self-purge the ones who've done it right from the ones who haven't. I think this is because Hispanic communities are still built around extended families, and many families have members living in either country. (You hear about the dollars that the undocumented folks take back to their families in Mexico? That's exactly the point.) There are generations of families that straddle the border, and some members of some families have made careers out of going back and forth.
From someone who lives in Phoenix, and my wife was called to jury duty at the Federal court house, and she sat on a jury for a deprotation of an illegal, I can tell you that it is not a fallacy. The trial she was on concerned a man who was 25 years old and worked as a massage therapist (legal massage). He was brought to the US as a child at age four or five. Was educated in the local school system, given grant money, and scholarship money to attend ASU in the field of sports medicine. Graduated high school in the top 20% of his class and after being deported twice graduated ASU in the top 30% of his class. His reason for continuing to cross illegaly into the US was he wanted to go home. He tried going through the legal process, but gave up because of the difficulty. He was sentenced to 3 years in Federal custody and is to be scheduled for deportation this year.
And yes there is collusion between some of the legals and the illegals, they sell them cars to people with no insurance or drivers licsense, help them obtain forged or stolen identities, (I have been a victim of that)
Are all of the legals bad? No. Are all of the illegals bad? Yes. What part of illegal to be here do people not get? Another thing, and this is a more personal issue, my wife contracted meningitis a couple of years ago, at a time that this illeness was starting to increase here. At the time that this happended she was running her own pet sitting/dog walking business. She would stop at convienence stores for something to drink or something to eat. Several of her clients who are MD's related the fact that there has been a spike in this and other illnesses related to undocumented/illegal aliens coming into the US, especially with the undocumented being in the hospital with the same illness.
And for those that think that the illegals are all Hispanic, you are wrong. In the Tucson and Yuma sectors, they are picking up an increaseing number of Asian and Eastern Europeans.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 28, 2010, 10:11:29 AM
Lawfull Contact means that the officer cannot just stop someone unless their is a lawfull reason to do so.
Are you sure about that? Does 'lawful contact' really mean something like a traffic stop, or does it simply mean when an officer makes contact with someone it isn't an abuse of power? Where in Arizona statues is 'lawful contact' defined?
Vagueness is but one of the big problems with this bill.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 28, 2010, 11:10:11 PM
Are all of the legals bad? No. Are all of the illegals bad? Yes. What part of illegal to be here do people not get?
What part of "mere presence in the country is not in and of itself criminal" don't you get? It's illegal to cross the border, it is not illegal to be here.
Now, in Arizona, once this bill takes effect, they will be trespassing.
Either way, these are people who just want to do what you do: Go to work and make some money. They don't have insurance not because they
want to be uninsured (in general, there is a subset of society that doesn't want to buy auto insurance for whatever reason), but because
they can't get it. If Arizona law instead butted out of the immigration issue entirely and allowed anyone who applies with proof of identity (and can pass the written and operator's exams), they would get licenses and be insured.
The hard line stance is only making things worse. I don't understand what's so difficult to grasp about that, unless you're the sort to class people into "good" and "evil" based on nothing more than whatever laws we happen to have at the moment and class these folks as "evil" simply because they crossed the border without permission.
I think that there are a number of people we ought to attempt to keep out. Human traffickers, drug smugglers, and the like. Unless we stem the flow of the benign immigrants by making it easier to immigrate legally, it simply won't be possible to police the border against people and things that actually threaten us.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 28, 2010, 11:56:02 PM
Are you sure about that? Does 'lawful contact' really mean something like a traffic stop, or does it simply mean when an officer makes contact with someone it isn't an abuse of power? Where in Arizona statues is 'lawful contact' defined?
Vagueness is but one of the big problems with this bill.
According to the press conference that Gov. Brewer had after signing the bill, it is a tool to be used after an initial contact with a person. In other words if you are contacted for something else, a traffic stop for a tail light, head light, or any infraction of the the law. If you are hanging out on a corner that is known for drug, prostitution, or other issues the police may come into contact with you. If you are involved (and this has happened to me) if you do not have a drivers licsence and no insureance you can be detained because you cannot prove that you are legal to drive in the us. In my case the people in the car told the DPS officer that none of them had a drivers licsence, and that their mother did, and she would come to the scene to prove that they could drive her car. The end result was that I was not at fault in the accident, but because the driver had no insureance or licsence, and the person that owned the car had not given permission for the driver to operate the car, it was my responsibilty to pay for the damage. So I was not at fault, but I had to pay for the repairs, and have my premiums increase, anf the person responsible walked away without any penalty.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 29, 2010, 12:41:15 AM
So I was not at fault, but I had to pay for the repairs, and have my premiums increase, anf the person responsible walked away without any penalty.
Unless Arizona law is utterly stupid, it requires insurance to operate a vehicle. Absent that insurance, the other driver received at least tickets for driving without insurance and driving without a license. Moreover, you or your insurance company could have sued the other driver. (Your insurance company most likely did..whether they were able to collect is another matter entirely)
Edited to add: You might want to rely on reading the law, rather than what politicians say about it, by the way. In most states, "lawful contact" basically means "an officer sees you and speaks to you." There is no bar of apparent criminal behavior required. Usually, police have better things to do than chatting with random passerby, however.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 12:47:29 AM
Unless Arizona law is utterly stupid, it requires insurance to operate a vehicle. Absent that insurance, the other driver received at least tickets for driving without insurance and driving without a license. Moreover, you or your insurance company could have sued the other driver. (Your insurance company most likely did..whether they were able to collect is another matter entirely)
Edited to add: You might want to rely on reading the law, rather than what politicians say about it, by the way. In most states, "lawful contact" basically means "an officer sees you and speaks to you." There is no bar of apparent criminal behavior required. Usually, police have better things to do than chatting with random passerby, however.
Yes your insureance company can sue the other driver, but if they are here illegaly, they will and do not show for court it's left to you to take care of the damage. You have no recourse to recover anything wether it is property damage, injury or loss of life.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 12:47:29 AM
Unless Arizona law is utterly stupid, it requires insurance to operate a vehicle. Absent that insurance, the other driver received at least tickets for driving without insurance and driving without a license. Moreover, you or your insurance company could have sued the other driver. (Your insurance company most likely did..whether they were able to collect is another matter entirely)
Edited to add: You might want to rely on reading the law, rather than what politicians say about it, by the way. In most states, "lawful contact" basically means "an officer sees you and speaks to you." There is no bar of apparent criminal behavior required. Usually, police have better things to do than chatting with random passerby, however.
If you lose your life in an accident, and the person at fault is here illegaly,(and they actually capture and arrest, try and convict that person) becuse the fact that they were in the US illegaly will take years to prove becuse they are given a pass, while a family member or loved one is dead. It's the same as if you go to Mexico and are seriously injured there, you may die before you get back to the US. I live in a border state, and not through some govt or web based fear do I concern myself with going across the border. Unless you have lived in an area like AZ, or parts of TX, NM, or played the Tom Cruise roll in "Loosing It" in Tijuana, I don't think that you know what's going on here. It's not don't cross, it's open warfare.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 29, 2010, 01:06:35 AM
Yes your insureance company can sue the other driver, but if they are here illegaly, they will and do not show for court it's left to you to take care of the damage. You have no recourse to recover anything wether it is property damage, injury or loss of life.
Failure to appear is not a crime confined to illegal immigrants by any means.
I fail to see how escalation of already failed policies will solve Arizona's problems.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 28, 2010, 11:56:02 PM
Are you sure about that? Does 'lawful contact' really mean something like a traffic stop, or does it simply mean when an officer makes contact with someone it isn't an abuse of power? Where in Arizona statues is 'lawful contact' defined?
Vagueness is but one of the big problems with this bill.
If an officer walks up to you today and asks for your identification, that is lawful contact. If he asks during an investigation that too is lawful contact. There is no change to the law in this part of the bill. A police officer can walk up to you today in Oklahoma and ask for your identification and you are required to provide it. Citizen or not.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 12:47:29 AM
Unless Arizona law is utterly stupid, it requires insurance to operate a vehicle. Absent that insurance, the other driver received at least tickets for driving without insurance and driving without a license. Moreover, you or your insurance company could have sued the other driver. (Your insurance company most likely did..whether they were able to collect is another matter entirely)
Requiring insurance doesn't even work in Oklahoma. A friend (no, not really me) was hit in his car by an uninsured US and Oklahoma legal citizen. The person who crashed into my friend didn't have much. So, even though the other driver was at fault but didn't have insurance, he was not arrested or suffer any consequence other than the damage to his own car. My friend tried to get a lawyer, the police, anyone with authority to help but none were interested. My friend had to fix his own car. I don't think making the casual illegal immigrant into a legal guest worker (or whatever) will fix the uninsured driver problem, here or Arizona.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2010, 08:10:44 AM
Requiring insurance doesn't even work in Oklahoma. A friend (no, not really me) was hit in his car by an uninsured US and Oklahoma legal citizen. The person who crashed into my friend didn't have much. So, even though the other driver was at fault but didn't have insurance, he was not arrested or suffer any consequence other than the damage to his own car. My friend tried to get a lawyer, the police, anyone with authority to help but none were interested. My friend had to fix his own car. I don't think making the casual illegal immigrant into a legal guest worker (or whatever) will fix the uninsured driver problem, here or Arizona.
Same damned thing happened to me three years ago. And, yes, the uninsured person was a native Okie. As far as I know, he's still driving.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 12:39:35 AM
What part of "mere presence in the country is not in and of itself criminal" don't you get? It's illegal to cross the border, it is not illegal to be here.
That makes no sense what so ever. If it is not illegal to be here, then on what basis does the government deport illegals? Can you give me a source for this claim? I have searched for it, but have not found any law that corrilates.
Interesting article discussing the impact of the new law (illegals leaving AZ?):
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h25Q3xiVr_f2n93eOTQ_KUndXtqQD9FCDCN00
Quote from: Gaspar on April 29, 2010, 07:39:59 AM
If an officer walks up to you today and asks for your identification, that is lawful contact. If he asks during an investigation that too is lawful contact. There is no change to the law in this part of the bill. A police officer can walk up to you today in Oklahoma and ask for your identification and you are required to provide it. Citizen or not.
Okay, which then circles back to the
reason the cop asked for your papers to begin with. Until now, cops needed probable cause to stop you. Under this new law it could be any 'reasonable suspicion', which is far more lenient. No crime needed, other than not being white.
Quote from: guido911 on April 29, 2010, 11:16:29 AM
Interesting article discussing the impact of the new law (illegals leaving AZ?):
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h25Q3xiVr_f2n93eOTQ_KUndXtqQD9FCDCN00
Nothing but a bunch of sorry excuses. Let's face it Guido, they are just a bunch of haters like you and I obfuscating by using logic:
"Kavanagh says day labor is generally off the books, and that deprives the state of much-needed tax dollars. "We'll never eliminate it, just like laws against street prostitution," he says. "But we can greatly reduce the prevalence."
Day laborers do jobs including construction, landscaping and household work for cash paid under the table. Those jobs have been harder to find since the housing industry collapsed here several years ago."
Custosnox.
Nathanm must be really young, cause he just doesn't understand that it IS illegal to be here without proper permission/papers, etc. I have ex family that had some distant relatives get caught up in that, and yes, they sometimes will prosecute (in certain cases) and yes they can get prison time.
Can you imagine, though, the case load and prison population if all 25million illegals were prosecuted? We just can't get there from here....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 29, 2010, 12:50:21 PM
Can you imagine, though, the case load and prison population if all 25million illegals were prosecuted? We just can't get there from here....
No, you are right and we've discussed that here before. I need to do a topic search sometime, I had some ideas for a logical path to citizenship which was not outright amnesty. We can't make 25mm people immediate citizens of the U.S. without a major log jam either.
We could have already completed a border wall many times over (I know that makes me hateful for wanting to thumb our noses at Mexico ::) ) that is something which needs to be done instead of paying lip service to it and passing un-funded bills for it.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 29, 2010, 12:50:21 PM
Custosnox.
Nathanm must be really young, cause he just doesn't understand that it IS illegal to be here without proper permission/papers, etc. I have ex family that had some distant relatives get caught up in that, and yes, they sometimes will prosecute (in certain cases) and yes they can get prison time.
Can you imagine, though, the case load and prison population if all 25million illegals were prosecuted? We just can't get there from here....
Interestingly enough, while trying to find any truth to that claim (I really don't like to assume) I did manage to find a part of the reason that it is so hard for Mexicans, even more so then other latino's, have such a hard time getting legal visas. It seems that each country is only allowed so many visas per year for it's immigrants. So because Mexico has so many trying to enter the country only a small percentage of them are legally allowed to. Apparantly it also draws a lottery to decide who gets a visa (just saw a small mention of that and not sure how that works).
Yeah, it is a few thousand per year. And even if you get in the queue, it is a MAJOR hassle to get here. I have a close relative who just got through doing it legally and it took several years and major pain in the butt. He is a citizen and very happy and proud to be so. And I am thrilled he got it, too. Good person who will be exceptional asset to this country. Unfortunately, they won't be living here due to all the RWRE BS they encountered for the 4 years or so this was in process. Shame, OK could use his help. (An example of the racism alive and well but simmering quietly in Tulsa I talked about in other post).
Perhaps a guest worker program could be made to work.
I recommend a much more radical approach (of course...) that was advanced over the years, most recently by Ronald Reagan. We should try to start moving toward getting states of Mexico to join with us and become future states. And Canada as well. Of course Canada won't because that would be bad for their overall standard of living.
Racists in Utah, Texas, Ohio, and Maryland following Arizona's example?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003648-503544.html
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 29, 2010, 01:22:34 PM
We should try to start moving toward getting states of Mexico to join with us and become future states.
I've often wondered if this wouldn't be the best way to go, maybe even the cheapest. However, the lack of infrastructure in Mexico would cause some serious problems on this end.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 29, 2010, 01:22:34 PM
I recommend a much more radical approach (of course...) that was advanced over the years, most recently by Ronald Reagan. We should try to start moving toward getting states of Mexico to join with us and become future states. And Canada as well. Of course Canada won't because that would be bad for their overall standard of living.
We could just join Canada. Everything is so great there.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 29, 2010, 01:22:34 PM
Perhaps a guest worker program could be made to work.
I recommend a much more radical approach (of course...) that was advanced over the years, most recently by Ronald Reagan. We should try to start moving toward getting states of Mexico to join with us and become future states. And Canada as well. Of course Canada won't because that would be bad for their overall standard of living.
We have a guest worker program. It's ignored largely by employers and moreso by "guest workers".
I don't recall Reagan proposing such a thing. Not saying he didn't I don't ever remember hearing about it. That would be nothing short of a disaster.
Quote from: custosnox on April 29, 2010, 09:42:51 AM
If it is not illegal to be here, then on what basis does the government deport illegals? Can you give me a source for this claim? I have searched for it, but have not found any law that corrilates.
The source is Title 8 of the US Code. Certain classes of people are "deportable," including all aliens who don't have the proper papers. That doesn't make it a criminal offense.
Edited to add: Overstaying a visa, for example, is not a criminal act. A visa overstayer is certainly deportable, but they never committed a crime. Coming here completely without papers and crossing the border out in the desert is a crime. Being here after doing so is evidence of your crime. Being here is still not a crime, except shortly in Arizona, where it will become trespassing under state law.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2010, 08:10:44 AM
I don't think making the casual illegal immigrant into a legal guest worker (or whatever) will fix the uninsured driver problem, here or Arizona.
It won't fix it, no. There will always be twits out driving without insurance. Usually because their driving record is so piss poor their liability insurance rates are unaffordable. Ironic, I suppose.
Nevertheless, as it stands, all illegal immigrants are driving around uninsured. If it was possible for them to be licensed and insured, I have a sneaking suspicion there would be better compliance with the law, although as you rightly point out, not 100%.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 03:12:14 PM
The source is Title 8 of the US Code. Certain classes of people are "deportable," including all aliens who don't have the proper papers. That doesn't make it a criminal offense.
Edited to add: Overstaying a visa, for example, is not a criminal act. A visa overstayer is certainly deportable, but they never committed a crime. Coming here completely without papers and crossing the border out in the desert is a crime. Being here after doing so is evidence of your crime. Being here is still not a crime, except shortly in Arizona, where it will become trespassing under state law.
You are correct, it is not a "criminal act" it is a "civil violation" of the INA. A person who overstays their visa is considered an "unlawful alien".
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 29, 2010, 01:23:45 AM
If you lose your life in an accident, and the person at fault is here illegaly,(and they actually capture and arrest, try and convict that person) becuse the fact that they were in the US illegaly will take years to prove becuse they are given a pass, while a family member or loved one is dead. It's the same as if you go to Mexico and are seriously injured there, you may die before you get back to the US. I live in a border state, and not through some govt or web based fear do I concern myself with going across the border. Unless you have lived in an area like AZ, or parts of TX, NM, or played the Tom Cruise roll in "Loosing It" in Tijuana, I don't think that you know what's going on here. It's not don't cross, it's open warfare.
How often do you cross the border? I spend 3 months of my year in Mexico for business, from Sonora to Tijuana to the southern tip of Baja and have NEVER had even so much as a threatening look from anyone in Mexico. I live in downtown Phoenix, in a very mixed ethnic neighborhood and again have no problems. In fact, the only time I seem to come across any type of conflict is when I drive to the East Valley or Scottsdale (predominantly white) and have to deal with angry, entitled white people and their road rage.
The danger hype about Mexico is exactly that- hype. There are people being killed, and about 99.9 percent of those are caught up in the drug wars, including the rancher that was murdered in southern AZ a few weeks back. Are there a few areas in Mexico I would not travel to? Of course- just like there are several places in the U.S. and other parts of the world I wouldn't visit either for security reasons. The VAST majority of Mexico is very safe, and the VAST majority of Mexican people are passive, friendly, law abiding folks. In fact, most of the time I feel safer in Mexico than I do in Phoenix where arcane gun laws allow people to now carry concealed weapons, WITHOUT a permit, into BARS.
As I sit writing this, I am in Mexico where I have been for the past week, and have not been kidnapped, shot at, or threatened. The only time I duck for cover is when I see the inevitable gang of drunk obnoxious Americans walking down the street.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 30, 2010, 10:05:14 AM
In fact, the only time I seem to come across any type of conflict is when I drive to the East Valley or Scottsdale (predominantly white) and have to deal with angry, entitled white people and their road rage.
fotd, did you hack azbad's account?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2010, 10:32:46 AM
fotd, did you hack azbad's account?
Lol- no it's still me. I just get a bit upset at all the brown people bashing in Phoenix all the time, when I see it quite differently.
Oh and in case anyone is wondering- I'm about as white bread as it gets, and I speak very limited Spanish.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 29, 2010, 11:21:58 AM
Okay, which then circles back to the reason the cop asked for your papers to begin with. Until now, cops needed probable cause to stop you. Under this new law it could be any 'reasonable suspicion', which is far more lenient. No crime needed, other than not being white.
Not correct. The law
specifically states that the officer cannot stop you based on your color or race.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2010, 12:25:33 PM
Not correct. The law specifically states that the officer cannot stop you based on your color or race.
Where in SB 1070 does it state this?
Edit: nevermind- found it.
"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."
I think it's again too vague. Where straight up racial profiling will be discouraged, targeting behavior or clothing is acceptable, as long as race isn't 'solely' used.
The first of many....
http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/TPD-Officer-Sues-to-Stop-SB1070-92438789.html
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 30, 2010, 12:32:02 PM
Where in SB 1070 does it state this?
Edit: nevermind- found it.
"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."
I think it's again too vague. Where straight up racial profiling will be discouraged, targeting behavior or clothing is acceptable, as long as race isn't 'solely' used.
So, you're citing behavioral profiling as unjust?
If that's the case I guess there really isn't any reasonable basis for law enforcement to engage anyone. LOL!
I love you guys. You're like FOTD light.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2010, 12:49:35 PM
So, you're citing behavioral profiling as unjust?
If that's the case I guess there really isn't any reasonable basis for law enforcement to engage anyone. LOL!
I love you guys. You're like FOTD light.
I guess anyone who disagrees with you would be considered as such.
I am stating that the law is too vague, murky, nuanced, etc. on many levels, and most likely will not be able to pass muster when challenged in court.
Behavioral profiling simply opens the door to then allow racial profiling.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 30, 2010, 12:33:22 PM
The first of many....
http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/TPD-Officer-Sues-to-Stop-SB1070-92438789.html
So long as an officer asks every "lawful contact" for ID and inquires about their immigration status, I don't see where there is room to claim discrimination or profiling.
So. . . If I was an officer and I saw a guy stumbling down the sidewalk, should I be able to engage him?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2010, 01:09:32 PM
So. . . If I was an officer and I saw a guy stumbling down the sidewalk, should I be able to engage him?
No that's profiling drunks ."...and profiling's wrong" (apologies to Ron White)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2010, 01:08:41 PM
So long as an officer asks every "lawful contact" for ID and inquires about their immigration status, I don't see where there is room to claim discrimination or profiling.
I think it would be a better indication if during every "lawful contact" asks for ID and inquires about immigration if they fail to produce any kind of proper ID. It would be a bit redundant to inquire if they have a license or government (military, ect) ID, since you are supposed to be a legal resident to acquire them.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2010, 01:12:37 PM
No that's profiling drunks ."...and profiling's wrong" (apologies to Ron White)
That is only if they are pulling over every car that happens to be traveling down that particular sidewalk that night.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2010, 01:09:32 PM
So. . . If I was an officer and I saw a guy stumbling down the sidewalk, should I be able to engage him?
I dunno . . . did he do something illegal?
Look, the officer in Azbad's link is putting a perfect point on the problem. The law states explicitly that stops cannot be made due to race alone, yet the only way to determine that someone's worth stopping is to make a judgment based on their actions or looks. Since illegals don't necessarily act differently from legals, we're back to judging based on looks. And what does an illegal look like, officer?
Quote from: we vs us on April 30, 2010, 01:51:48 PM
I dunno . . . did he do something illegal?
Look, the officer in Azbad's link is putting a perfect point on the problem. The law states explicitly that stops cannot be made due to race alone, yet the only way to determine that someone's worth stopping is to make a judgment based on their actions or looks. Since illegals don't necessarily act differently from legals, we're back to judging based on looks. And what does an illegal look like, officer?
Excellent point. That officer would be in clear violation, and that would not constitute legal contact.
Quote from: custosnox on April 30, 2010, 01:22:22 PM
That is only if they are pulling over every car that happens to be traveling down that particular sidewalk that night.
Well. . .There's your probable cause. If you're driving on the sidewalk I think you should be stopped.
Arizona doubling down. Bill approved by both houses and sent to Gov. Brewer would stop all ethnic studies programs.
QuoteUnder the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
The article adds that the state is cracking down on English teachers with heavy accents.
QuoteMeanwhile, in a move that was more covert until the Wall Street Journal uncovered it, the Arizona Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html
According to Rasmussen, 70% of Arizona voters approve of the law. 23% disapprove.
Quote from: guido911 on April 30, 2010, 03:02:16 PM
Arizona doubling down. Bill approved by both houses and sent to Gov. Brewer would stop all ethnic studies programs.
The article adds that the state is cracking down on English teachers with heavy accents.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html
I really thought this was a joke. Turns out it's not. Wow.
Quote from: we vs us on April 30, 2010, 04:51:57 PM
I really thought this was a joke. Turns out it's not. Wow.
It's almost as if Arizona is taking a scorched earth approach to the immigration issue.
Quote from: guido911 on April 30, 2010, 05:13:37 PM
It's almost as if Arizona is taking a scorched earth approach to the immigration issue.
I visited Sierra Vista last year and there are alot of older white retirees there.
I was standing on the front porch looking at a range of hills and told by one of them, "That's Mexico". Meanwhile, back at the ranch, one of them would be telling my wife about all the damned Mexicans.
Yup.
On the other hand, they have one of the nicest grocery stores I've ever seen.
When an LEO comes into contact with someone, isn't the second question they ask, regardless of the contact, "Do you have some indentifacation on you, or some way to identify who you are?" has been around for a long time. I can speak on this because of an incident that happened to me in 1982, when I friend I was riding around with was pulled over for drag racing on 41st between Harvard and Yale. The circumstance involved that he was driving and I was a passenger, and yes we had been imbibing Millers while out on a Saturday night and I know that the officer could smell the beer in the car since it was late Febuary. When the officer asked me for ID the only thing I could give him was a temporary paper reciept from the OHP, because I had gotten a speeding ticket the weekend previously while going to a concert in Norman. The fact that I was truthful, and gave identification that showed who I was, and could prove who I was was all the officer needed, and he was able to verify who I am.
I guess what I am saying is, if you can prove who you are legally to LEO, has been around longer than this new bill/law.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 30, 2010, 11:16:17 PM
I guess what I am saying is, if you can prove who you are legally to LEO, has been around longer than this new bill/law.
In most states, you aren't legally obligated to provide identification unless you are being arrested (presuming you aren't driving). In some, you can refuse even then, although you'll never make bail that way. :P
Quote from: Townsend on April 30, 2010, 05:29:38 PM
I visited Sierra Vista last year and there are alot of older white retirees there.
Bingo. There is a huge population of retired people in AZ, predominantly white and conservative. They also tend to vote in huge numbers. AZ is filled with gated, master planned 'cities' filled with these types of people. It's interesting because you don't typically see the retirees because they stay in their 'safe' walled in areas of cities like Sun City, Anthem, Sun Lakes, Sierra Vista, etc. but they are a huge driving force of the politics of this state.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 01, 2010, 11:45:01 AM
Bingo. There is a huge population of retired people in AZ, predominantly white and conservative.
Like this person?
Quote from: guido911 on May 01, 2010, 01:11:09 PM
Like this person?
Unfortunately she's wrong. I have yet to hear anyone explain what AZ's definition of 'lawful contact' is, most likely because it is undefined.
She also doesn't change the fact that AZ is filled with white retired conservatives....what's your point?
Arizonal lawmakers changed the wording:
http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/181111/arizona_lawmakers__tweak_immigration_bill%3B_%E2%80%98lawful_contact%E2%80%99_out,_%E2%80%99stop,_detain_or_arrest%E2%80%99_in/
Apparently even they realized that, as originally written, the law would never hold up in court.
At least it looks better now....on paper.
I guess it's a crime to be a retired white conservative living in AZ.
Or is it a crime to just be:
retired ?
white ?
conservative ?
live in AZ ?
or any combination of the above?
Venting on retired white conservatives living in AZ sounds like profiling to me. Stereotyping for sure.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 01, 2010, 02:28:51 PM
I guess it's a crime to be a retired white conservative living in AZ.
Or is it a crime to just be:
retired ?
white ?
conservative ?
live in AZ ?
or any combination of the above?
Venting on retired white conservatives living in AZ sounds like profiling to me. Stereotyping for sure.
Yep!
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 01, 2010, 02:28:51 PM
I guess it's a crime to be a retired white conservative living in AZ.
Or is it a crime to just be:
retired ?
white ?
conservative ?
live in AZ ?
or any combination of the above?
Venting on retired white conservatives living in AZ sounds like profiling to me. Stereotyping for sure.
Where did I say anything about a crime?
I was pointing out that having such large numbers of that demographic, who also happen to vote in large numbers, totally affects the political climate of the state.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 01, 2010, 05:08:56 PM
Where did I say anything about a crime?
I was pointing out that having such large numbers of that demographic, who also happen to vote in large numbers, totally affects the political climate of the state.
The attitude that I perceived from your posts about them is that they are undesirable.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 01, 2010, 05:54:44 PM
The attitude that I perceived from your posts about them is that they are undesirable.
Not at all. Well, their votes could be considered undesireable depending on your point of view, but as people, no.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 01, 2010, 07:14:13 PM
Not at all. Well, their votes could be considered undesireable depending on your point of view, but as people, no.
FWIW I'll accept that explanation.
Let the illegal immigrants (Mexican, Asian, Eastern Euro, Irish, etc) vote. Maybe that would drive out the undesireable well-to-do white people from Arizona. That's one way to stop this hatred and racism. :-/
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 01, 2010, 01:39:14 PM
Unfortunately she's wrong. I have yet to hear anyone explain what AZ's definition of 'lawful contact' is, most likely because it is undefined.
While nobody can say for sure unless a court has ruled on it specifically, the most reasonable construction would be that any time an officer is in contact with someone and the officer made that contact lawfully. So if you are walking down the street and the officer says "hello," that would be lawful contact. If you were sitting in your living room and they break down your door without a warrant, that would not be lawful contact.
So basically any time you are in public, you could be asked for proof of your immigration status, since it's perfectly legal for an officer (or anyone else) to come up to you and strike up a conversation.
Quote from: nathanm on May 01, 2010, 11:07:34 PM
While nobody can say for sure unless a court has ruled on it specifically, the most reasonable construction would be that any time an officer is in contact with someone and the officer made that contact lawfully. So if you are walking down the street and the officer says "hello," that would be lawful contact. If you were sitting in your living room and they break down your door without a warrant, that would not be lawful contact.
So basically any time you are in public, you could be asked for proof of your immigration status, since it's perfectly legal for an officer (or anyone else) to come up to you and strike up a conversation.
Exactly. Which is why lawmakers have now changed the wording. Instead of 'lawful contact' it now states 'stop, detain or arrest'.
Also, the passage which read that law enforcement officers were prevented from 'solely' using race as grounds for suspecting someone is in the country has been changed to remove the word 'solely'.
The changes definitely make the law more clear and explicit in regards to the profiling issue- at least on paper. How it will be executed is another story.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 01, 2010, 02:28:51 PM
I guess it's a crime to be a retired white conservative living in AZ.
Or is it a crime to just be:
retired ?
white ?
conservative ?
live in AZ ?
or any combination of the above?
Venting on retired white conservatives living in AZ sounds like profiling to me. Stereotyping for sure.
Hmmm. Interesting leap of logic.
Hispanics are afraid the new AZ law will unfairly subject them to racial profiling.
"Venting on retired white conservatives sounds like profiling."
Therefore, white, retired conservatives are just as likely to be victims of profiling as hispanics. ::)
Equivocationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation#Switch-Referencing
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.
Evolution is a theory.
Theories are speculative.
Therefore evolution is speculative.
Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter.
Therefore margarine is better than butter.
Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this must be done.
Again, so long as everyone is questioned the same in the citizenship it's not discrimination. I don't recall anywhere in the constitution that peace officers nor members of the military are not allowed to check citizenship nor immigration status. Nor do I recall the clause which says I don't have to provide such information when asked.
Quote from: JeffM on May 02, 2010, 09:16:08 AM
Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this must be done.
That's sort of the way Congress has been operating of late....
Quote from: Conan71 on May 02, 2010, 09:59:34 AM
Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this must be done.
That's sort of the way Congress has been operating of late....
I thought of you when I boldfaced that..... I figured it also reflected your political views on how the "George Kaiser River Tax" was handled.... how's that hopey changey Tulsa Landing project thingy workin out these days-- you remember, the project that was going to happen regardless of whether the river tax passed? ;D
Quote from: JeffM on May 02, 2010, 09:16:08 AM
Hispanics are afraid the new AZ law will unfairly subject them to racial profiling.
"Venting on retired white conservatives sounds like profiling."
Therefore, white, retired conservatives are just as likely to be victims of profiling as hispanics. ::)
Profiling by liberal and hispanic groups as being anti-hispanic.
So, what are the liberal and hispanic groups going to do?
Deport retirees back to Chicagoland?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 02, 2010, 09:56:53 AM
Again, so long as everyone is questioned the same in the citizenship it's not discrimination.
And that's where that pesky 'reasonable suspicion' thing comes into play. Considering the way I look I really don't think I would ever be questioned about my immigration status. I never have been before (except when crossing borders) and don't think that's likely to change.
I easily could be an illegal immigrant from Canada (of which I knew many when living in NYC) since most of them are white and pretty much sound like U.S. citizens. But that's not who this is targeting, and everyone knows it.
So do you really think everyone will be questioned the same? Not likely.
The truth of the matter is that racial profiling has, and will continue to be a problem regardless of this bill. It's a widespread police issue.
Quote from: JeffM on May 02, 2010, 11:00:48 AM
So, what are the liberal and hispanic groups going to do?
Deport retirees back to Chicagoland?
I'm sure the liberals and hispanics could find a way to make life miserable for the undesirable, white, conservative, retirees. Then the WCRs would leave and let the liberals and minorities have the place.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 02, 2010, 09:43:31 PM
I'm sure the liberals and hispanics could find a way to make life miserable for the undesirable, white, conservative, retirees. Then the WCRs would leave and let the liberals and minorities have the place.
Unreasoning paranoia alert. ::)
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 01, 2010, 05:08:56 PM
Where did I say anything about a crime?
I was pointing out that having such large numbers of that demographic, who also happen to vote in large numbers, totally affects the political climate of the state.
That's profiling!
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 02, 2010, 10:39:20 PM
Unreasoning paranoia alert. ::)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. ;D
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 02, 2010, 11:10:06 AM
And that's where that pesky 'reasonable suspicion' thing comes into play. Considering the way I look I really don't think I would ever be questioned about my immigration status.
So do you really think everyone will be questioned the same? Not likely.
The truth of the matter is that racial profiling has, and will continue to be a problem regardless of this bill. It's a widespread police issue.
So do we quit policing and enforcing laws out of fear we might offend groups of people?
My understanding is cops won't be pulling people over for being Hispanic but if they violate a traffic law that constitutes grounds for a legal contact. Not really any different than what they do now. When a cop pulls someone over at 2am for a burned out tag light he isn't after the tag light. It's an example of a lawful contact which has a decent liklihood of resulting in a DUI or drug arrest. Certainly we shouldn't profile people with alcohol problems. That's a disease and disability. Why are we making people with no regard for the law into victims?
If there becomes an issue with ethnic profiling over this then re-train the LEO's doing it or let them face losing their job.
It will probably be something like. If you pull somebody over and they can't speak English. Then you ask. That would be considered speachial profiling (yes I know speachial isn't a real word). Of course illegal immigrants could just learn to speak English before coming over. Either way it saves the state money.
Quote from: JeffM on May 02, 2010, 10:31:05 AM
I thought of you when I boldfaced that..... I figured it also reflected your political views on how the "George Kaiser River Tax" was handled.... how's that hopey changey Tulsa Landing project thingy workin out these days-- you remember, the project that was going to happen regardless of whether the river tax passed? ;D
Boldfaced or bald faced? ;)
Remember one thing: I'm never wrong, I'm just not always correct ;)
Given the recent economic climate, I don't think Tulsa Landing would have progressed, regardless. It still would have required significant investment from the developer and commitment from key tennants. Now that the mayor has unveiled more regressive "fees" he'd like to add to shore up the balance sheet I'd say we are probably just as well it did not pass at the time. We still are getting many improvements without the tax slush fund.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 03, 2010, 08:44:15 AM
So do we quit policing and enforcing laws out of fear we might offend groups of people?
My understanding is cops won't be pulling people over for being Hispanic but if they violate a traffic law that constitutes grounds for a legal contact. Not really any different than what they do now. When a cop pulls someone over at 2am for a burned out tag light he isn't after the tag light. It's an example of a lawful contact which has a decent liklihood of resulting in a DUI or drug arrest. Certainly we shouldn't profile people with alcohol problems. That's a disease and disability. Why are we making people with no regard for the law into victims?
If there becomes an issue with ethnic profiling over this then re-train the LEO's doing it or let them face losing their job.
Slippery Slope alert!
We don't arrest people for having alcohol problems. We arrest people when their alcohol problem causes them to break laws. Crucial difference. The point is it's not
who they are that makes them eligible for arrest, it's their actions. Which brings us back to the crucial question: how do you act like an illegal immigrant?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 03, 2010, 08:44:15 AM
So do we quit policing and enforcing laws out of fear we might offend groups of people?
My understanding is cops won't be pulling people over for being Hispanic but if they violate a traffic law that constitutes grounds for a legal contact. Not really any different than what they do now. When a cop pulls someone over at 2am for a burned out tag light he isn't after the tag light. It's an example of a lawful contact which has a decent liklihood of resulting in a DUI or drug arrest. Certainly we shouldn't profile people with alcohol problems. That's a disease and disability. Why are we making people with no regard for the law into victims?
If there becomes an issue with ethnic profiling over this then re-train the LEO's doing it or let them face losing their job.
All this is true, except it no longer states 'lawful contact' since that was too vague. It now states 'stop, detain or arrest' which definitely makes it clearer, at least from the officer's standpoint.
What is
different with the new bill is that it now requires LEO's to question, with reasonable suspicion, a person's immigration status
after they have already been stopped for something else. So if I am white, with no accent (even though I may be an illegal from Canada) the cop is most likely not going to have reasonable suspicion that I am in this country illegally and will not ask me for my papers.
All that aside, the bill is still unconstitutional by requiring AZ officers to enforce laws that are only enforceable by the Feds. The oklahoma immigration law was struck down for this reason, and California had similar laws struck down for the same reason back in the 90's.
I was not aware that HB-1804 was struck down. Are you sure about that?
Local and state law enforcement enforce federal law all the time. I don't think you can claim it unconstitutional on that basis.
If the re-worded the Az bill to state that LEO's must ask citizenship status of everyone stopped, arrested, or detained that ends the problem of any group being singled out for identification purposes so that should make everyone happy other than those who don't want immigration laws enforced.
Keep in mind, LEO's will still interpret how they want, that's a problem we see in enforcement of firearm laws now but that's a topic for another day and another thread.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 03, 2010, 10:10:12 AM
I was not aware that HB-1804 was struck down. Are you sure about that?
Local and state law enforcement enforce federal law all the time. I don't think you can claim it unconstitutional on that basis.
If the re-worded the Az bill to state that LEO's must ask citizenship status of everyone stopped, arrested, or detained that ends the problem of any group being singled out for identification purposes so that should make everyone happy other than those who don't want immigration laws enforced.
Keep in mind, LEO's will still interpret how they want, that's a problem we see in enforcement of firearm laws now but that's a topic for another day and another thread.
Apparently 2 of the three provisions in HB-1084 are
pre-empted by Federal law and were struck down. The 3rd part of the law was upheld and could go into effect, pending further legal action. That portion requires employers to use a federal computer system called E-Verify to check eligibility of job seekers. The provision only affects businesses that contract with government entities for physical performance of services, such as building roads or bridges.
Arizona already uses E-verify as well as several other states.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 03, 2010, 10:10:12 AM
I was not aware that HB-1804 was struck down. Are you sure about that?
Two sections of it have been in regional court. Still hasn't hit higher courts so it's still an open ballgame.
60% of Americans are racist (40% strongly racist):
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532337
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 10:47:25 AM
60% of Americans are racist (40% strongly racist):
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532337
In 1967, the year the U.S. supreme court legalized interracial marriage, about 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.
http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=polls-and-studies
Were 72% of Americans racist in 1967?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 08:07:30 PM
In 1967, the year the U.S. supreme court legalized interracial marriage, about 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.
http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=polls-and-studies
Were 72% of Americans racist in 1967?
I think you missed my snark.
Here is Az's response to Obama:
Finally, some of the first photos of Arizona's new immigration enforcement are coming in:
Quote from: guido911 on May 08, 2010, 12:44:51 PM
Here is Az's response to Obama:
Staring down the barrel of November, are we, Governor? Smells like an election year to me.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 08:07:30 PM
In 1967, the year the U.S. supreme court legalized interracial marriage, about 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.
http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=polls-and-studies
Were 72% of Americans racist in 1967?
Why is there no interracial male couple depicted in the header photos? I sense discrimination here...
AZ border agents attacked with rocks from the Mexican side of the fence.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=765_1222731899
Looks like Miss Oklahoma is a bigot:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/16/miss_oklahoma_usa_supports_arizona_law_im_a_huge_believer_in_states_rights.html
"She was asked what she thought about the new immigration law in Arizona. The judge who asked her the question was Oscar Nunez."
Ooops, probably not a great political move.
Whoa! Red Arrow...are you really me in disguise?? I have only known two other people that knew that phrase let alone use it! (Just because you are paranoid...)
Who am I really? Could my alter ego personality actually BE Red Arrow??
Now I AM feeling paranoid!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 17, 2010, 10:43:24 PM
Whoa! Red Arrow...are you really me in disguise?? I have only known two other people that knew that phrase let alone use it! (Just because you are paranoid...)
Who am I really? Could my alter ego personality actually BE Red Arrow??
Now I AM feeling paranoid!!
Nah, don't worry. We disagree on enough items we cannot be clones. However, go ahead and feel paranoid if you wish. ;D
Yeah, I know...but it made a cute little side story!
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 09:27:50 AM
"She was asked what she thought about the new immigration law in Arizona. The judge who asked her the question was Oscar Nunez."
Ooops, probably not a great political move.
No Democrat politician is going to admit that they have read the Arizona law. They have been instructed to claim that they have not read it.
The reason is. . .the consequences of ridicule for not reading the 10 page law are minor compared to having knowledge of the legislation and answering any questions related to it. The primary line of questioning would focus on these two questions:
What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does already not place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?
This would defuse the mock outrage, and turn the line of questioning back to federal responsibility and its failure.
It's a catch 22, so it's better to claim ignorance.
And, apparently, our USAG & director of Homeland Security haven't bothered to read it either. The hyperbole rings so much truer when they don't know the truth behind the bill:
"President Barack Obama and his administration began blasting Arizona's controversial immigration law the day Gov. Jan Brewer signed it. But over the past week, a growing list of top administration officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, acknowledged that they haven't read the legislation.
The revelations come as Republicans step up their criticism of the Obama administration's response to the Arizona law, which makes it a state crime to be in the United States without proper documentation and directs local police to pursue, during a lawful stop, detention or arrest, the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect to be illegal immigrants. The law has generated calls for economic boycotts of Arizona and has led to five lawsuits, many filed by civil-rights groups.
On Thursday, Holder, who has a team of Justice Department attorneys reviewing the statute to prepare for a possible legal challenge, told the House Judiciary Committee that he had only "glanced at it."
"I have not read it," he said."
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/19/20100519arizona-immigration-law-critics.html#ixzz0oNlGvqQ2
They have all read it. There is just no way to defend their stance. Better to claim ignorance, than to embrace it as policy.
This thing is going to continue to produce political "Sharts" for the administration until they fix the problem.
(http://media.nbcwashington.com/images/410*307/michelleobama4.jpg)
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Girl-Outs-Mothers-Citizenship-Status-During-First-Ladys-School-Visit-94268584.html
Albuquerque no longer a sanctuary city for illegals:
http://www.koat.com/news/23549511/detail.html
Quote from: guido911 on May 23, 2010, 07:11:56 PM
They actually showed this on the local evening news in Phoenix. Hilarious, and pathetic. It's 10 pages people! Read it!
I daily run into people who are very outspoken, either for or against the law, who haven't bothered to read it. Unbelievable.
What's sad is that it really is irrelevant whether anyone reads it or not. Or what it contains or not. It is a trick question - an invalid question.
And now, AZ law author wants to write a law regarding babies born to illegals. Does the state of Arizona have SO many resources that they can keep wasting the time and effort of their legislature for this nonsense? Yep, I guess they do. Just like Oklahoma apparently does with our own version; Randy Brogdon.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 24, 2010, 01:08:54 PM
What's sad is that it really is irrelevant whether anyone reads it or not. Or what it contains or not. It is a trick question - an invalid question.
And now, AZ law author wants to write a law regarding babies born to illegals. Does the state of Arizona have SO many resources that they can keep wasting the time and effort of their legislature for this nonsense? Yep, I guess they do. Just like Oklahoma apparently does with our own version; Randy Brogdon.
Apparently AZ has plenty of resources, now that the Gov got her tax hike passed, taking us from the 28th highest sales taxed state in the nation to the 8th highest...
I'm glad to see our tax dollars hard at work for ALL Arizonans. Not.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 24, 2010, 01:14:45 PM
Apparently AZ has plenty of resources, now that the Gov got her tax hike passed, taking us from the 28th highest sales taxed state in the nation to the 8th highest...
I'm glad to see our tax dollars hard at work for ALL Arizonans. Not.
Welcome to the NRO. (New Republican Order).
Obama sends in the National Guard:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_re_us/us_national_guard_border
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 02:37:31 PM
Obama sends in the National Guard:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_re_us/us_national_guard_border
Great job, Mr. President!
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2010, 02:47:43 PM
Great job, Mr. President!
I was thinking you would call Obama a racist or some other sarc.
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 02:51:32 PM
I was thinking you would call Obama a racist or some other sarc.
That goes without saying, doesn't it? Really we need Hometown to come on with high drama and tell us how Hillarity Clinton wouldn't have let all those brown people down.
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 02:37:31 PM
Obama sends in the National Guard:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_re_us/us_national_guard_border
Political posturing. Nothing new, and still won't do s**t.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 25, 2010, 11:32:31 PM
Political posturing. Nothing new, and still won't do s**t.
Yeah. In the past we've sent 5,000 troups, and then 6,000 troups and made a short term dent. What the president is doing is meaningless, but like everything else he does, it's designed to provide fodder for speech.
The White House has become a clown car.
Just got this in the email from Sullivans office
Quote
Friends –
Just last week, John Morton, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) made the shocking statement that the Obama Administration "will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by the state of Arizona".
Because I beleive the federal government has an obligation to enforce our nation's immigration laws and to keep the American people safe, I went to the House floor to urge Assistant Secretary Morton and the Obama Administration to do their job and enforce our nation's interior immigration laws. You can view my speech below.
Looks like the Feds are planning to step in.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/26/20100526arizona-immigration-law-federal-challenge.html
Quote from: custosnox on May 26, 2010, 12:36:10 PM
Just got this in the email from Sullivans office
Yeah, but none of that during our previous administration...oh wait...
Hmm. . . Still on the "previous administration" thing. You should just make your tag line say "Yeah, but the previous administration. . ."
The actions of previous administrations are no longer a license for poor performance. That door has closed.
From the State Dept. . .
"US National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the frontier and not to enforce US immigration laws," the State Department said Wednesday.
That comes less than a week after the President said this. . .
He said the move was "fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods -- drugs, guns, people."
So you guys were right. . . It was just another gimmick.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2010, 07:25:40 AM
Hmm. . . Still on the "previous administration" thing. You should just make your tag line say "Yeah, but the previous administration. . ."
The actions of previous administrations are no longer a license for poor performance. That door has closed.
I wouldn't say that. How can we measure performance if not in comparison to past results?
At the same time, there's a lot of smile to shovel from the last 8 years.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2010, 07:25:40 AM
The actions of previous administrations are no longer a license for poor performance.
If you have a previous leader who ran up big deficits during good economic conditions, then it would stand to reason that you're going have even bigger deficits when the economy turns south.
If you're a leader, your goal is to make sure you left the place better than you left it. On that aspect, Bush II failed miserably. That is indisputable. Your inability to acknowledge these facts is disturbing.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 27, 2010, 09:23:44 AM
If you have a previous leader who ran up big deficits during good economic conditions, then it would stand to reason that you're going have even bigger deficits when the economy turns south.
If you're a leader, your goal is to make sure you left the place better than you left it. On that aspect, Bush II failed miserably. That is indisputable. Your inability to acknowledge these facts is disturbing.
I'm not a Bush defender by any means. He was a very mediocre president. His whole last term was crap. He did nothing but battle an out of control congress, and then just gave up. The economy was in a slump when he left, because he could do little to curb Fanny & Freddy's appetite for disaster. I argue none of this. I also recognize, as every other intelligent person should, that deficits increase in a recession. Standard crisis stuff.
What I do not accept is pushing through trillions of dollars in completely unrelated spending at a rate of billions a day, and then saying "well it's all Bush's fault." Some stimulus spending, yes, but everything else. . .hell no.
Congress passed PAYGO 3 months ago, and since that time has racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in extra UNFUNDED spending, and hundreds of billions more lays on the floor of the house to be approved.
He has not done a single thing to control spending. He has not reigned in Congress at all. On the contrary, he has outspent every president COMBINED. This administrations legacy will last for decades, and he has a license to do it just by saying "I'm cleaning up Bush's mess." It's not even good bull$hit.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2010, 07:25:40 AM
Hmm. . . Still on the "previous administration" thing. You should just make your tag line say "Yeah, but the previous administration. . ."
The actions of previous administrations are no longer a license for poor performance. That door has closed.
Tell that to previous administrations. I'm sure your favorite whipping boy was Clinton when Bush Jr was in the House.
I'm not saying he's solely to blame. But some of it (actually a pretty large part of it) rests on his shoulders and some on previous admins before him. Let's keep in mind that this mess that has been created wouldn't have been a mess had some common-sense things been done under the last two four-year terms.
I love watching the hand-wringing. But don't let me temper that pi$$ and vinegar.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2010, 10:00:27 AM
What I do not accept is pushing through trillions of dollars in completely unrelated spending at a rate of billions a day, and then saying "well it's all Bush's fault." Some stimulus spending, yes, but everything else. . .hell no.
You don't get it. Because Bush "squandered" billions fighting his wars, it's okay for Obama to do the same (trillions though) on ineffective stimulus and omnibus. After all, it's his turn.
Yeah, got it. Still don't appreciate it.
I've got kids that have to live through the mess.
I find it palpable that when the economy went in the crapper in 2001/2002 that it was entirely President Bush's fault and that none of the policies of the Clinton years were culpable. It was always about the crooks at Enron (and those like them) and their friends in the Bush administration.
Back on topic. Now with the AG mulling over a suit calling this bill unconstitutional because it attempts to over-ride the duties of the Federal government, I'm amazed at the chutzpah. Obviously the Feds aren't doing their job or Arizona would not have felt the need to pass the law.
Quote from: guido911 on May 27, 2010, 10:44:35 AM
You don't get it. Because Bush "squandered" billions fighting his wars, it's okay for Obama to do the same (trillions though) on ineffective stimulus and omnibus. After all, it's his turn.
Nation building at home > nation building abroad.
Quote from: we vs us on May 27, 2010, 02:58:38 PM
Nation building bankrupting at home > nation building abroad.
That's more like it.
Quote from: we vs us on May 27, 2010, 02:58:38 PM
Nation building at home > nation building abroad.
I trust you noted his latest "emergency" military spending bill after promising there would be no more emergency military spending bills, yes?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2010, 03:11:12 PM
I trust you noted his latest "emergency" military spending bill after promising there would be no more emergency military spending bills, yes?
There will also be "no more stimulus" and congress will follow the strict rules of PAYGO. LOL.
. . .and I think I've come to the conclusion that if someone is inept, you don't just do the job for them. . .you fire them, and give them the opportunity to find a line of work that is a better fit for their capabilities.
Border security is a very basic responsibility of the federal government (perhaps #1 on the list), and over the past few administrations we have seen the fed turn away from their
primary responsibilities and focus on other
crap (that's really the only term that fits).
Arizona is simply reminding them of their job. It's like the bell at McDonalds that tells the moron when the fries are done. Arizona is the bell. Time to do your job!
You can't avoid it any longer, because your bosses are pissed!
(http://www.bargainbooks4kids.com/images/thats%20not%20my%20princess.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on May 27, 2010, 10:44:35 AM
You don't get it. Because Bush "squandered" billions fighting his wars, it's okay for Obama to do the same (trillions though) on ineffective stimulus and omnibus. After all, it's his turn.
This is pretty off topic, but I dare say that the stimulus has thus far been effective at its main purpose, which is to prevent the onset of deflation. Despite the trillions of dollars destroyed by the market, we are still sitting at about .9% core inflation.
I can see that this thread has a lot of IOKIYAR going on. Amazing how people can be screaming for the federal government to do something to secure the borders, yet when Obama finally caves and does the stupid thing people have been asking for he gets lambasted for it. ::)
And last I checked, Bush's wars (one of which Obama has wrongly decided he should make his own) have already cost more than a trillion dollars. (About $750 billion for Iraq alone, thus far) Supposedly, by the time all is said and done, economists and the CBO expect the total cost of Iraq alone to be between 2 and 3 trillion dollars.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2010, 03:36:59 PM
Amazing how people can be screaming for the federal government to do something to secure the borders, yet when Obama finally caves and does the stupid thing people have been asking for he gets lambasted for it. ::)
And last I checked, Bush's wars (one of which Obama has wrongly decided he should make his own) have already cost more than a trillion dollars. (About $750 billion for Iraq alone, thus far) Supposedly, by the time all is said and done, economists and the CBO expect the total cost of Iraq alone to be between 2 and 3 trillion dollars.
First of all, why would securing our borders be stupid?
Second, when will the ineptitude of President Obama stop being compared to the ineptitude of Bush?
(a date will be fine)
We are supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not use them as excuses for the present.
If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. – Winston Churchill
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2010, 03:46:10 PM
First of all, why would securing our borders be stupid?
We don't need the military to secure our borders, we need to liberalize immigration so that the border patrol can reasonably combat the reduced numbers of illegal crossings. Sending the military is buying into the idea that this is a problem that any level of force we can reasonably use can solve, when it is clearly not. But you know that, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about him sending troops and saying that it's a waste of money.
Quote
Second, when will the ineptitude of President Obama stop being compared to the ineptitude of Bush?
(a date will be fine)
When you guys stop referring to Reagan as the messiah. ;) Not that I was comparing ineptitudes at all, I was comparing moderate success to utter failure.
Quote
We are supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not use them as excuses for the present.
I was refuting Guido's underestimate of the cost of our foreign adventures, not using them to justify anything Obama has done. Sorry I wasn't more clear about that.
Anyway, let's not get into your 9AM post, it gives me a headache from all the rewriting of history. I didn't realize you were a fan of 1984.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2010, 03:46:10 PM
First of all, why would securing our borders be stupid?
Second, when will the ineptitude of President Obama stop being compared to the ineptitude of Bush?
(a date will be fine)
Much to my chagrin and the chagrin of many others, almost none of 42's activities came with a cut-off date. When you look at his wars, his tax cuts, his unfunded mandates, and his bailouts, as well as the incompetents with which he decided to staff the whole of the US regulatory system, unwinding the Bush presidency is going to be a long and painful process. And it was gonna be, even if we had a McCain/Palin administration in office.
Quote from: we vs us on May 27, 2010, 04:38:42 PM
Much to my chagrin and the chagrin of many others, almost none of 42's activities came with a cut-off date. When you look at his wars, his tax cuts, his unfunded mandates, and his bailouts, as well as the incompetents with which he decided to staff the whole of the US regulatory system, unwinding the Bush presidency is going to be a long and painful process. And it was gonna be, even if we had a McCain/Palin administration in office.
I've heard estimates that the mess will last about 3 more years.
Come on Wevus, this song is really getting old. Nate still didn't answer my questions.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2010, 03:36:59 PM
This is pretty off topic, but I dare say that the stimulus has thus far been effective at its main purpose, which is to prevent the onset of deflation. Despite the trillions of dollars destroyed by the market, we are still sitting at about .9% core inflation.
Really? At what point did President Obama state that was the main purpose of the porkulus? I thought the main purpose was to create jobs and prevent people from losing their homes.
I guess that isn't working as expected so it's time to move the goal posts.
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j182/swiftian/zaius2008l/golaposts2.jpg)
Much as now that it looks like the top kill might work on the oil spill the Obama administration is really to claim responsibility for it.
Quote from: we vs us on May 27, 2010, 04:38:42 PM
Much to my chagrin and the chagrin of many others, almost none of 42's activities came with a cut-off date. When you look at his wars, his tax cuts, his unfunded mandates, and his bailouts, as well as the incompetents with which he decided to staff the whole of the US regulatory system, unwinding the Bush presidency is going to be a long and painful process. And it was gonna be, even if we had a McCain/Palin administration in office.
So basically we should just lower our expectations for every subsequent administration and Congress from now on since the Bush years were such a bust?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2010, 04:44:55 PM
Really? At what point did President Obama state that was the main purpose of the porkulus? I thought the main purpose was to create jobs and prevent people from losing their homes.
It has also done that. It has been successful on many fronts. That you refuse to look at the information available to you does not make it nonexistent.
It's merely my personal opinion that staving off deflation was by far the most important thing done with all the money we've spent recently. The Administration would say that quantitative easing was the actual deflation prevention program. I say they all had that effect.
And Gaspar, I seem to recall typing an answer to both of your questions (and see them in the thread!)
After 19 pages, isn't this thread getting just a little threadbare? Too many replies to keep track of.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 27, 2010, 08:33:29 PM
After 19 pages, isn't this thread getting just a little threadbare? Too many replies to keep track of.
Quiet Heir, we are still yelling at each other in here now. ;D
Well, you know for a fact that I am all for that, but geez, let's get it on a new thread so I don't have to look through so many pages! (I'm old and it is too much effort on my poor feeble old neurons to have to think that hard...)
So I'm trying to find a reliable article about the border fence cancellation. Is it 100% shut down or is it reduced?
Maybe a white picket fence? Those are pretty.
Quote from: Townsend on April 14, 2011, 10:22:16 AM
So I'm trying to find a reliable article about the border fence cancellation. Is it 100% shut down or is it reduced?
Maybe a white picket fence? Those are pretty.
Or a picket fence as constructed around colonial settlements. Think sharpened logs.
Arizona Senate passes "birther" bill
QuoteAriz. House to vote on bill requiring presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens
How'd they do this before Oklahoma?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/14/politics/main20053936.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/14/politics/main20053936.shtml)
Nathan,
Inflation is only low if you use the "new" revisionist model implemented after the 1980 election. You remember, the one where we had "15%" inflation one week, then about 3 weeks later, we were down to about "6%". That old Reagan magic....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Inflation-Actually-Near-10-cnbc-357695506.html?x=0
But hey, you can't make it sound good if you go with reality. And then the 1990 revision STILL left us with over 5%.
And guido and conan have apparently both been asleep for the last 18 months (remember Rumplestiltskin??). The economy is much better than a year and a half ago. My company has hired more than 25,000 and the plan is to add about another 40,000 to 50,000 in the next 3 - 5 years. And it looks like it will make it. Not too bad for a piddly little $700 billion stimulus. Especially when compared to the trillion and a quarter shoveled out by Baby Bush to his banker/insurance buddies that just let the slide continue for 18 months after those noble expenditures.
I just love yelling at each other....thanks for the encouragement, guido!!
Quote from: Townsend on April 14, 2011, 10:22:16 AM
So I'm trying to find a reliable article about the border fence cancellation. Is it 100% shut down or is it reduced?
Maybe a white picket fence? Those are pretty.
Actually this is some of the new fencing they are installing in Nogales.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/04/16/20110416arizona-nogales-border-fence-immigration-ON.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/04/16/20110416arizona-nogales-border-fence-immigration-ON.html)
Well at least their governor nixed the birther bill.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110419/pl_nm/us_arizona_birther (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110419/pl_nm/us_arizona_birther)
QuoteArizona Sen. Steve Gallardo, an outspoken Democrat, said the governor realized that the bills would be bad for the state's image and had nothing to do with the challenges it faces.
"She know that these bills are not going to help with Arizona's image," Gallardo told Reuters.
"All they do is put us in the national spotlight and make us look silly. She's saying she doesn't want that to happen any longer."
Think the OK governor would feel the same?
Saw this on Drudge. I did not think it merited its own thread but interesting/funny still.
QuoteTUCSON, Arizona (Reuters) - A long-simmering movement by liberal stalwarts in southern Arizona to break away from the rest of the largely conservative state is at a boiling point as secession backers press to bring their longshot ambition to the forefront of Arizona politics.
A group of lawyers from the Democratic stronghold of Tucson and surrounding Pima County have launched a petition drive seeking support for a November 2012 ballot question on whether the 48th state should be divided in two.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-southern-arizona-seek-form-state-130257516.html
Quote from: guido911 on May 10, 2011, 03:10:27 PM
Saw this on Drudge. I did not think it merited its own thread but interesting/funny still.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-southern-arizona-seek-form-state-130257516.html
That would be great. Just think, we wouldn't need to supply border patrol agents in southern Arizona anymore. They can handle their own immigration issues as they see fit. We will simply build a fence completely sectioning off that part of Az and they can have their own immigration utopia.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 10, 2011, 03:15:42 PM
That would be great. Just think, we wouldn't need to supply border patrol agents in southern Arizona anymore. They can handle their own immigration issues as they see fit. We will simply build a fence completely sectioning off that part of Az and they can have their own immigration utopia.
So that's what that was!!!!!!I spent Monday and Tuesday in Tucson over by Pima and Davis AFB. There were tons of homeless guys on every corner sitting on coolers waving american flags and screaming something. They all had the same cooler with an American flag and "Baja" painted on it. At the time I had no idea what that meant.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 10, 2011, 03:32:46 PM
So that's what that was!!!!!!
At the time I had no idea what that meant.
Don't worry. Those geniuses have no idea what it means either. I'm with Conan. Let them split off.
If Nate went there he would be in paradise.
I'm all for it! Nothing better than watching another Socialist Utopia fail.
They should make it into a reality show!!!
Can't wait for that episode where they grant them statehood and hand over all of the financial responsibility to them.
If you are not familiar with the Pima area it's mostly the AFB and airplane graveyards/storage. Pima is where you see all of those movies filmed with the miles of baking C-135 strewn out across the desert. Not a lot of rich to burden with feeding liberal mouths. :D
If they become a state their first act will be to tightly affix themselves to the federal teet as firmly as possible.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 10, 2011, 03:32:46 PM
So that's what that was!!!!!!
I spent Monday and Tuesday in Tucson over by Pima and Davis AFB. There were tons of homeless guys on every corner sitting on coolers waving american flags and screaming something. They all had the same cooler with an American flag and "Baja" painted on it. At the time I had no idea what that meant.
Are you sure they weren't paid protestors for the Carpenter's Union?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 10, 2011, 03:54:40 PM
If they become a state their first act will be to tightly affix themselves to the federal teet as firmly as possible.
You might want to look inward before you make such accusations toward others.
Quote from: nathanm on May 10, 2011, 04:36:00 PM
You might want to look inward before you make such accusations toward others.
There you have it. Projection on steroids.
Quote from: guido911 on May 10, 2011, 04:47:40 PM
There you have it. Projection on steroids.
Yes, Gaspar was projecting Oklahoma's own problem on this proposed new state.
Quote from: nathanm on May 11, 2011, 02:03:03 PM
Yes, Gaspar was projecting Oklahoma's own problem on this proposed new state.
Now you've completely lost me, but by all means keep rolling.
I seem to remember that there was a movement started by Jay Cronley I believe for NE Oklahoma to seceed into Kansas at one time.
As for Pima County wanting to become a state, let's just say they've been sampling the stuff they confiscate coming across the border, mainly peyote.
Also these Democrats are probably being led by Raúl Grijalva, who so prominently told the world to boycott AZ after the passage of SB1070. He's one of the first one to shake the hand of an illegal and congratulate him and then wants to give these poor souls money and assistance from the state.
The other reason they want to seceed? It's where the active copper mines are.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 11, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
I seem to remember that there was a movement started by Jay Cronley I believe for NE Oklahoma to seceed into Kansas at one time.
As for Pima County wanting to become a state, let's just say they've been sampling the stuff they confiscate coming across the border, mainly peyote.
In Pima County they don't confiscate!
Quote from: Gaspar on May 11, 2011, 05:04:04 PM
In Pima County they don't confiscate!
Ok, my bad, they appropriate. Better?
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 11, 2011, 04:55:19 PM
Also these Democrats are probably being led by Raúl Grijalva, who so prominently told the world to boycott AZ after the passage of SB1070. He's one of the first one to shake the hand of an illegal and congratulate him and then wants to give these poor souls money and assistance from the state.
The other reason they want to seceed? It's where the active copper mines are.
Wonder if I should sell my AZC stock ;)
FYI, it was nutbag David Arnett who had the idea of secession.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2011, 05:20:33 PM
Wonder if I should sell my AZC stock ;)
Only if it's ASARCO or Freeport McMoRan in Pima County(formerly Phelps Dodge), ASARCO has two mines Silver Bell and Mission Complex, Freeport has one, Sierrita.
QuoteFYI, it was nutbag David Arnett who had the idea of secession.
There all a little nutty there. Some people that live around Davis Monthan AFB claim the military planes are sparying chemtrails in the air as a form of control over them.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 11, 2011, 05:32:31 PM
Only if it's ASARCO or Freeport McMoRan in Pima County(formerly Phelps Dodge), ASARCO has two mines Silver Bell and Mission Complex, Freeport has one, Sierrita.
There all a little nutty there. Some people that live around Davis Monthan AFB claim the military planes are sparying chemtrails in the air as a form of control over them.
Augusta Resources Rosemount Copper mine. It's still in the permitting phase but should be online in 2013 and will produce up to 10% of the entire U.S. output plus silver and molybdenum.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2011, 06:28:12 PM
Augusta Resources Rosemount Copper mine. It's still in the permitting phase but should be online in 2013 and will produce up to 10% of the entire U.S. output plus silver and molybdenum.
When that mine goes into operation, Pima county will have roughly half the total copper production in the state.
Arizona's immigration law heading to the Supremes. Is Kagan recusing? If so, just proves the point that Obama's decision to appoint an individual that litigated his policies was a complete lack of foresight.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/12/supreme-court-will-hear-arizona-immigration-law-ca/
Quote from: guido911 on December 12, 2011, 01:28:24 PM
Arizona's immigration law heading to the Supremes. Is Kagan recusing? If so, just proves the point that Obama's decision to appoint an individual that litigated his policies was a complete lack of foresight.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/12/supreme-court-will-hear-arizona-immigration-law-ca/
She is recusing, and she is expected to recuse on the healthcare decision too. In President Obama's defense, she was the only candidate he could have gotten confirmed for the position.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 12, 2011, 01:30:56 PM
She is recusing, and she is expected to recuse on the healthcare decision too. In President Obama's defense, she was the only candidate he could have gotten confirmed for the position.
Ah, if only Clarence Thomas would also recuse himself from the HCR thing, too . . . we might have a moderately respectable judiciary!
Quote from: Gaspar on December 12, 2011, 01:30:56 PM
In President Obama's defense, she was the only candidate he could have gotten confirmed for the position.
I, in no way, can agree with that. He got the "wise Latina" through.
Quote from: we vs us on December 12, 2011, 01:34:45 PM
Ah, if only Clarence Thomas would also recuse himself from the HCR thing, too . . . we might have a moderately respectable judiciary!
Why should he recuse? Because of his
wife's activities?