Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[Yankee23Fan]

You seem to be missing that point. If you are here illegally you are committing a crime.

You seem to be missing the point.

It is a victimless crime

There is a ton of debate on that I think.

which is impossible to prosecute once it has occurred (meaning the act of getting here),

Huh? You make no sense.

unless you are prepared to completely disrupt American ideas of jurisprudence.

I don't think this is true at all. There you go down your extremist slide once again.

 

[secondplaceisfirstloser]

You seem to be missing that point. If you are here illegally you are committing a crime.

You seem to be missing the point. It is a victimless crime which is impossible to prosecute once it has occurred (meaning the act of getting here), unless you are prepared to completely disrupt American ideas of jurisprudence.

I am always a bit skeptical when I hear the rule of law argument asserted by restrictions. This argument asserts that illegal immigrants do not deserve equitable consideration because they have demonstrated they do not respect US law by sneaking in the country. The argument takes on a moral tone. Why do restrictionists make this argument about illegal immigration and not other victimless violation of the law? Why not attack people who speed in automobiles or jay-walk? After all, they have also demonstrated indifference to the law as well?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You seem to be missing that point. If you are here illegally you are committing a crime.

You seem to be missing the point. It is a victimless crime which is impossible to prosecute once it has occurred (meaning the act of getting here), unless you are prepared to completely disrupt American ideas of jurisprudence.

I am always a bit skeptical when I here the rule of law argument asserted by restrictions. This argument asserts that illegal immigrants do not deserve equitable consideration because they have demonstrated they do not respect US law by sneaking in the country. The argument takes on a moral tone. Why do restrictionists make this argument about illegal immigration and not other victimless violation of the law? Why not attack people who speed in automobiles or jay-walk? After all, they have also demonstrated indifference to the law as well?

I'm wondering if this is directed at me because if it is you've shown you haven't read the whole thread. People who speed do get punished if caught. I represent them in court. Jaywalking is no longer a crime in New Jersey so I can't help you there. Based on new law here, pedestrians always have the right of way regardless of time, place or manner.

 

[Shirtless]

Gotta start with the basics on this one.I can't see anyone that would disagree that someone who enters this country without going through the legal channels is breaking the law. If someone is pulled over for a traffic stop and isn't in this country legally, they should be bounced and forced to go through the proper channels.People from other countries that have gone through the immigration process have my respect. Turning a blind eye to people here illegally is a slap in the face to those that have done it the right way.

I think you should ask some legal immigrants is they think that illegal immigration "is a slap in the face."

I'll answer since I'm pretty sure I'm the only immigrant on this website. It's not a slap in the face. I support them and hate the very essence of this new law. Moreover, the fact that Latino voters have become more and more supportive of immigration reform also indicates how other immigrants feel about illegal immigrants. Keep in mind the ones doing the voting are all documented, obviously.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think this is true at all. There you go down your extremist slide once again.

And here we have the real problem. Forget the populists, they're always going to be looking for unrealistic, simplistic solutions anyhow, and we can dismiss them when it comes to policy decisions. But here we have you, Yankee, an intelligent, thoughtful person with a legal background, and you actually believe that the "crime" of illegal immigration can be prosecuted in this country in a practicable manner. I say it can't, and you call me an extremist. Sure, I'm an extremist in what I want to happen (open borders) but I'm not being an extremist here. I'm speaking completely pragmatically- there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

 

[secondplaceisfirstloser]

You seem to be missing that point. If you are here illegally you are committing a crime.

You seem to be missing the point. It is a victimless crime which is impossible to prosecute once it has occurred (meaning the act of getting here), unless you are prepared to completely disrupt American ideas of jurisprudence.

I am always a bit skeptical when I here the rule of law argument asserted by restrictions. This argument asserts that illegal immigrants do not deserve equitable consideration because they have demonstrated they do not respect US law by sneaking in the country. The argument takes on a moral tone. Why do restrictionists make this argument about illegal immigration and not other victimless violation of the law? Why not attack people who speed in automobiles or jay-walk? After all, they have also demonstrated indifference to the law as well?

I'm wondering if this is directed at me because if it is you've shown you haven't read the whole thread. People who speed do get punished if caught. I represent them in court. Jaywalking is no longer a crime in New Jersey so I can't help you there. Based on new law here, pedestrians always have the right of way regardless of time, place or manner.

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

You seem to be missing that point. If you are here illegally you are committing a crime.

You seem to be missing the point. It is a victimless crime which is impossible to prosecute once it has occurred (meaning the act of getting here), unless you are prepared to completely disrupt American ideas of jurisprudence.

I am always a bit skeptical when I here the rule of law argument asserted by restrictions. This argument asserts that illegal immigrants do not deserve equitable consideration because they have demonstrated they do not respect US law by sneaking in the country. The argument takes on a moral tone. Why do restrictionists make this argument about illegal immigration and not other victimless violation of the law? Why not attack people who speed in automobiles or jay-walk? After all, they have also demonstrated indifference to the law as well?

I'm wondering if this is directed at me because if it is you've shown you haven't read the whole thread. People who speed do get punished if caught. I represent them in court. Jaywalking is no longer a crime in New Jersey so I can't help you there. Based on new law here, pedestrians always have the right of way regardless of time, place or manner.

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

Great posting here.

 

[Ray Stevens]

It's times like these when we need ***LA up in here to tell us about the virtues of "white culture".

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

It's times like these when we need ***LA up in here to tell us about the virtues of "white culture".

The old immigration threads were way better than they are now.

 

[Gambino]

I'm going to be furious if the cost of strawberries goes up

 

[urbanhack]

I'm going to be furious if the cost of la fresas goes up

fixed

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm going to be furious if the cost of Chipotle goes up

fixed again

 

[Bogeys]

I don't think this is true at all. There you go down your extremist slide once again.

And here we have the real problem. Forget the populists, they're always going to be looking for unrealistic, simplistic solutions anyhow, and we can dismiss them when it comes to policy decisions. But here we have you, Yankee, an intelligent, thoughtful person with a legal background, and you actually believe that the "crime" of illegal immigration can be prosecuted in this country in a practicable manner. I say it can't, and you call me an extremist. Sure, I'm an extremist in what I want to happen (open borders) but I'm not being an extremist here. I'm speaking completely pragmatically- there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Hmmmm, so to keep from being a hypocrit like you have accused others of being...you would have to support totally open borders for Israel because otherwise the bolded will happen there also. Your dismissive attitude of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject as being either motivated by racism, a hypocritical populist or just not very bright is why people say you aren't helping your side of the argument. You are like LHucks in a Pac10 thread in here.

 

[Shirtless]

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

Great posting here.

Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, those people making the biggest fuss about illegal immigration don't actually care about the law. They care about the rising number of immigrants in this country and what that implies, and how that makes them feel. They don't like seeing street signs in foreign languages. They don't like customer service associates who speak English with accents. They don't like seeing children of immigrants hanging around convenience stores. It's xenophobia poorly hidden behind a ruse of concern for upholding the law.This is why documented immigrants are so supportive of illegal immigrants and so against the current anti [illegal] immigrant trend. We can detect the true motivations behind the movement, and it's disgusting.

 

[Bogeys]

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

Great posting here.

Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, those people making the biggest fuss about illegal immigration don't actually care about the law. They care about the rising number of immigrants in this country and what that implies, and how that makes them feel. They don't like seeing street signs in foreign languages. They don't like customer service associates who speak English with accents. They don't like seeing children of immigrants hanging around convenience stores. It's xenophobia poorly hidden behind a ruse of concern for upholding the law.This is why documented immigrants are so supportive of illegal immigrants and so against the current anti [illegal] immigrant trend. We can detect the true motivations behind the movement, and it's disgusting.

So you are fighting what you see as racism and stereotyping by stereotyping...gotcha.

 

[Godsbrother]

I haven't read the thread but I am 100% against this legislation as it is racist, hateful and encourages racial profiling.

Not only that but it is almost certainly going to mean more of those wet****s fleeing Arizona and moving to states like Pennsylvania.

 

[Thorn]

The loitering tresspass language of the bill is one such example. It's must be fairly obvious based on training, observation and statisticsof Arizona law enforcment that loitering is a rather open and obvious behavior of illegal immigrants, given that it is most likely the method of how they obtain employment. This is no different then local PD's patrolling certain areas of the woods in neck of the...... well, woods, because it is known that that is where teenagers go to do heroin. This isn't rocket science.

Again, just a terrible analogy. If the teenagers are doing heroin, they are committing a crime (though whether this should be considered a crime is a different issue.) But the other people you're talking about, what crime are they committing? You're not arresting them for doing heroin, you're arresting them for being....... here illegally

You seem to be missing that point. If you are here illegally you are committing a crime.

You are correct that being here illegally is committing a crime. But being here legally is not a crime. So if someone who is here legally has brown skin and rides in the back of a pickup truck, can they be constitutionally stopped and asked for proof of citizenship? What about having brown skin and standing outside a 7-11 or Home Depot? I have a hard time seeing how this law can be enforced without being overinclusive, especially when one of the acceptable criteria for suspicion is having brown skin. There's no way to ensure that only illegals are detained by police.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think this is true at all. There you go down your extremist slide once again.

And here we have the real problem. Forget the populists, they're always going to be looking for unrealistic, simplistic solutions anyhow, and we can dismiss them when it comes to policy decisions. But here we have you, Yankee, an intelligent, thoughtful person with a legal background, and you actually believe that the "crime" of illegal immigration can be prosecuted in this country in a practicable manner. I say it can't, and you call me an extremist. Sure, I'm an extremist in what I want to happen (open borders) but I'm not being an extremist here. I'm speaking completely pragmatically- there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Hmmmm, so to keep from being a hypocrit like you have accused others of being...you would have to support totally open borders for Israel because otherwise the bolded will happen there also. Your dismissive attitude of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject as being either motivated by racism, a hypocritical populist or just not very bright is why people say you aren't helping your side of the argument. You are like LHucks in a Pac10 thread in here.

I have no idea what this discussion has to do with Israel. Furthermore, I don't think that people have to agree with me about open borders to reach the rest of my conclusions. I do not think that those who disagree with me are racist, populist, or hypocritical. I believe that some who oppose illegal immigration do so out of racism, but most don't. I do believe it is generally a populist issue, as is the tea party movement. I think the tea party movement is hypocritical. I have never called anyone here stupid, and I don't dismiss anyone here, not even LHUCKS.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I don't think this is true at all. There you go down your extremist slide once again.

And here we have the real problem. Forget the populists, they're always going to be looking for unrealistic, simplistic solutions anyhow, and we can dismiss them when it comes to policy decisions. But here we have you, Yankee, an intelligent, thoughtful person with a legal background, and you actually believe that the "crime" of illegal immigration can be prosecuted in this country in a practicable manner. I say it can't, and you call me an extremist. Sure, I'm an extremist in what I want to happen (open borders) but I'm not being an extremist here. I'm speaking completely pragmatically- there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Hmmmm, so to keep from being a hypocrit like you have accused others of being...you would have to support totally open borders for Israel because otherwise the bolded will happen there also. Your dismissive attitude of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject as being either motivated by racism, a hypocritical populist or just not very bright is why people say you aren't helping your side of the argument. You are like LHucks in a Pac10 thread in here.

Lot of suicide bombings and fanaticism over the holy land of Texas going on?

 

[Shirtless]

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

Great posting here.

Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, those people making the biggest fuss about illegal immigration don't actually care about the law. They care about the rising number of immigrants in this country and what that implies, and how that makes them feel. They don't like seeing street signs in foreign languages. They don't like customer service associates who speak English with accents. They don't like seeing children of immigrants hanging around convenience stores. It's xenophobia poorly hidden behind a ruse of concern for upholding the law.This is why documented immigrants are so supportive of illegal immigrants and so against the current anti [illegal] immigrant trend. We can detect the true motivations behind the movement, and it's disgusting.

So you are fighting what you see as racism and stereotyping by stereotyping...gotcha.

Actually I'm just stating my honest opinion. If I generalize, fine. But at least I'm not hiding my honest opinions.I'd have a lot more respect for some of these people if they would flatly say, "You know what, I just don't like having that immigrants in this country" instead of trying to hide behind asinine claims of violent crimes economic apocalypse.

 

[secondplaceisfirstloser]

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

Great posting here.

Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, those people making the biggest fuss about illegal immigration don't actually care about the law. They care about the rising number of immigrants in this country and what that implies, and how that makes them feel. They don't like seeing street signs in foreign languages. They don't like customer service associates who speak English with accents. They don't like seeing children of immigrants hanging around convenience stores. It's xenophobia poorly hidden behind a ruse of concern for upholding the law.This is why documented immigrants are so supportive of illegal immigrants and so against the current anti [illegal] immigrant trend. We can detect the true motivations behind the movement, and it's disgusting.

So you are fighting what you see as racism and stereotyping by stereotyping...gotcha.

I don't see how it is stereotyping and I didn't mention racism in my post. I merely pointed out the argument is selectively applied which raises questions about whether those who make the argument, usually with great passion, really believe it. You are the one who raised racism as a possible explanation. I agree with you this is certainly one possibility.

 

[Bogeys]

I don't think this is true at all. There you go down your extremist slide once again.

And here we have the real problem. Forget the populists, they're always going to be looking for unrealistic, simplistic solutions anyhow, and we can dismiss them when it comes to policy decisions. But here we have you, Yankee, an intelligent, thoughtful person with a legal background, and you actually believe that the "crime" of illegal immigration can be prosecuted in this country in a practicable manner. I say it can't, and you call me an extremist. Sure, I'm an extremist in what I want to happen (open borders) but I'm not being an extremist here. I'm speaking completely pragmatically- there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Hmmmm, so to keep from being a hypocrit like you have accused others of being...you would have to support totally open borders for Israel because otherwise the bolded will happen there also. Your dismissive attitude of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject as being either motivated by racism, a hypocritical populist or just not very bright is why people say you aren't helping your side of the argument. You are like LHucks in a Pac10 thread in here.

I have no idea what this discussion has to do with Israel. Furthermore, I don't think that people have to agree with me about open borders to reach the rest of my conclusions. I do not think that those who disagree with me are racist, populist, or hypocritical. I believe that some who oppose illegal immigration do so out of racism, but most don't. I do believe it is generally a populist issue, as is the tea party movement. I think the tea party movement is hypocritical. I have never called anyone here stupid, and I don't dismiss anyone here, not even LHUCKS.

Bolded it for you.I am just pointing out that if you want open borders here then to be consistent you have to be for them for every country.

And you usually insuate motives to people who disagree with you even though you don't come out and say it most of the time...then you fall back on the "I don't mean all people that think xxx have the motivation."

 

[Bogeys]

I don't think this is true at all. There you go down your extremist slide once again.

And here we have the real problem. Forget the populists, they're always going to be looking for unrealistic, simplistic solutions anyhow, and we can dismiss them when it comes to policy decisions. But here we have you, Yankee, an intelligent, thoughtful person with a legal background, and you actually believe that the "crime" of illegal immigration can be prosecuted in this country in a practicable manner. I say it can't, and you call me an extremist. Sure, I'm an extremist in what I want to happen (open borders) but I'm not being an extremist here. I'm speaking completely pragmatically- there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Hmmmm, so to keep from being a hypocrit like you have accused others of being...you would have to support totally open borders for Israel because otherwise the bolded will happen there also. Your dismissive attitude of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject as being either motivated by racism, a hypocritical populist or just not very bright is why people say you aren't helping your side of the argument. You are like LHucks in a Pac10 thread in here.

Lot of suicide bombings and fanaticism over the holy land of Texas going on?

I am not the one that claimed there would be rioting and discord, take that up with Tim

 

[Bogeys]

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

Great posting here.

Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, those people making the biggest fuss about illegal immigration don't actually care about the law. They care about the rising number of immigrants in this country and what that implies, and how that makes them feel. They don't like seeing street signs in foreign languages. They don't like customer service associates who speak English with accents. They don't like seeing children of immigrants hanging around convenience stores. It's xenophobia poorly hidden behind a ruse of concern for upholding the law.This is why documented immigrants are so supportive of illegal immigrants and so against the current anti [illegal] immigrant trend. We can detect the true motivations behind the movement, and it's disgusting.

So you are fighting what you see as racism and stereotyping by stereotyping...gotcha.

I don't see how it is stereotyping and I didn't mention racism in my post. I merely pointed out the argument is selectively applied which raises questions about whether those who make the argument, usually with great passion, really believe it. You are the one who raised racism as a possible explanation. I agree with you this is certainly one possibility.

Huh? I was responding to the post from Shirtless that I quoted, not sure why you thought I was responding to you?

 

[videoguy505]

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

The devil is what is "reasonable suspicion." Other then that it reads like a typical ordinance.

So, not knowing Arizona law beyond this and what this modifies, it seems like most of it would be ok except the reasonable suspicion language in the second part given the possibility that a Mexican can be questioned simply for being a Mexicn.

About Section B you quoted above, what constitutes "lawful contact"? Does that mean there must already exist a situation in which a LEO is interacting with a person (traffic stop, investigating a complaint, etc.)? Or can police initiate contact (see a brown guy walking by, question him)? And am I correct in that the police don't have power to detain?And if the LEOs make up out of whole cloth the reason to go from 'reasonable suspicion' to 'probable cause', i.e. say something like "when the person got near me, I believed I detected the smell of marijuana" which can sometimes pass for 'probable cause' for a search, once that issue is dealt with (person searched/drug sniffing dog/etc), can the person continue to be detained until alien status is determined, even though such status was unrelated to the original probable cause?

YankeeFan, if you're still in the thread, can you clear up what constitutes "lawful contact"? And if you have an opinion on the second half of my question, that'd be cool too.

 

[Ray Stevens]

I don't think this is true at all. There you go down your extremist slide once again.

And here we have the real problem. Forget the populists, they're always going to be looking for unrealistic, simplistic solutions anyhow, and we can dismiss them when it comes to policy decisions. But here we have you, Yankee, an intelligent, thoughtful person with a legal background, and you actually believe that the "crime" of illegal immigration can be prosecuted in this country in a practicable manner. I say it can't, and you call me an extremist. Sure, I'm an extremist in what I want to happen (open borders) but I'm not being an extremist here. I'm speaking completely pragmatically- there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Hmmmm, so to keep from being a hypocrit like you have accused others of being...you would have to support totally open borders for Israel because otherwise the bolded will happen there also. Your dismissive attitude of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject as being either motivated by racism, a hypocritical populist or just not very bright is why people say you aren't helping your side of the argument. You are like LHucks in a Pac10 thread in here.

Lot of suicide bombings and fanaticism over the holy land of Texas going on?

I am not the one that claimed there would be rioting and discord, take that up with Tim

In the case of the new Arizona law, I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that might and could happen.Oh, and if you ever put me in the position of defending Tim again, I'm going to hunt you down.

 

[Bogeys]

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

Great posting here.

Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, those people making the biggest fuss about illegal immigration don't actually care about the law. They care about the rising number of immigrants in this country and what that implies, and how that makes them feel. They don't like seeing street signs in foreign languages. They don't like customer service associates who speak English with accents. They don't like seeing children of immigrants hanging around convenience stores. It's xenophobia poorly hidden behind a ruse of concern for upholding the law.This is why documented immigrants are so supportive of illegal immigrants and so against the current anti [illegal] immigrant trend. We can detect the true motivations behind the movement, and it's disgusting.

So you are fighting what you see as racism and stereotyping by stereotyping...gotcha.

Actually I'm just stating my honest opinion. If I generalize, fine. But at least I'm not hiding my honest opinions.I'd have a lot more respect for some of these people if they would flatly say, "You know what, I just don't like having that immigrants in this country" instead of trying to hide behind asinine claims of violent crimes economic apocalypse.

And I actually agree with your opinion that some of the opposition is caused by racism and xenophobia, but as soon as that is said to be the motivation for most or even a large minority of one side of the argument then you might as well stop talking because at that point there will be a lot of people that will vote for these kind of laws but won't discuss it because they don't want to be called racists. That doesn't help reach a long-term national solution, that just causes laws like these to be passed and supported by large majorities that just want something/anything done about something they see as a problem.I would love for DC to pass comprehensive reform. Large guest-worker programs, seal the border (either by a fence, troops, whatever) and then we can discuss amnesty or path to citizenship...but until the sealing of the border happens I personally will be against amnesty because that will just encourage further illegal immigration and I believe we need to have some say so on who, what skill-set and how many are immigrating here. I couldn't care less what color their skin is personally.

 

[Bogeys]

And here we have the real problem. Forget the populists, they're always going to be looking for unrealistic, simplistic solutions anyhow, and we can dismiss them when it comes to policy decisions. But here we have you, Yankee, an intelligent, thoughtful person with a legal background, and you actually believe that the "crime" of illegal immigration can be prosecuted in this country in a practicable manner. I say it can't, and you call me an extremist. Sure, I'm an extremist in what I want to happen (open borders) but I'm not being an extremist here. I'm speaking completely pragmatically- there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Hmmmm, so to keep from being a hypocrit like you have accused others of being...you would have to support totally open borders for Israel because otherwise the bolded will happen there also. Your dismissive attitude of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject as being either motivated by racism, a hypocritical populist or just not very bright is why people say you aren't helping your side of the argument. You are like LHucks in a Pac10 thread in here.

Lot of suicide bombings and fanaticism over the holy land of Texas going on?

I am not the one that claimed there would be rioting and discord, take that up with Tim

In the case of the new Arizona law, I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that might and could happen.Oh, and if you ever put me in the position of defending Tim again, I'm going to hunt you down.

Yes sir...loved your show in Branson by the way. On a serious note I don't think public policy should be dictated on who is going to threaten worse violence...if that is the metric we need to welcome our Islamofacist overlords now.

 

[The Z Machine]

BTW, I'm for "open" borders for the USA and Israel.

(By "open" I mean a significant reduction in the difficulty in immigrating legally, or a program that puts the "migrant" back in "immigrant", i.e. a temporary, seasonal labor force that can cross the border easily.)

 

[Bogeys]

BTW, I'm for "open" borders for the USA and Israel.

(By "open" I mean a significant reduction in the difficulty in immigrating legally, or a program that puts the "migrant" back in "immigrant", i.e. a temporary, seasonal labor force that can cross the border easily.)

I don't disagree with the bolded at all and am actually all for it as long as we as a nation control it.And I actually agree more with Tim on the Israeli situation, but that makes me consistent on the issue of borders...as are you apparently.

 

[Ray Stevens]

On a serious note I don't think public policy should be dictated on who is going to threaten worse violence...if that is the metric we need to welcome our Islamofacist overlords now.

I don't disagree. But if I'm a third generation US born citizen of Mexican descent, and I get stopped and asked for I.D. after coming out of Home Depot with a gallon of paint, you can bet I'm going to be pissed. I may even join a protest.In fact, I can't imagine a that situation ending without me getting arrested for something.

 

[Bogeys]

On a serious note I don't think public policy should be dictated on who is going to threaten worse violence...if that is the metric we need to welcome our Islamofacist overlords now.

I don't disagree. But if I'm a third generation US born citizen of Mexican descent, and I get stopped and asked for I.D. after coming out of Home Depot with a gallon of paint, you can bet I'm going to be pissed. I may even join a protest.In fact, I can't imagine a that situation ending without me getting arrested for something.

I might have the same reaction as you; but like I said when a real discussion can't be had for fear of being labled a racist then you get stuff like this law that people will vote for/support out of frustration.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I get stopped and asked for I.D. after coming out of Home Depot with a gallon of paint

Would a cop have reasonable suspicion here?

 

[urbanhack]

I get stopped and asked for I.D. after coming out of Home Depot with a gallon of paint

Would a cop have reasonable suspicion here?

What if he decided to wear his sombrero that day?

 

[Thorn]

I get stopped and asked for I.D. after coming out of Home Depot with a gallon of paint

Would a cop have reasonable suspicion here?

What if a third generation Mexican was standing outside smoking? Or waiting out front to meet a buddy to help load up a truck with a bunch of supplies? Or waiting for his wife to show up so she could pick out the kitchen tile he's going to install?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I get stopped and asked for I.D. after coming out of Home Depot with a gallon of paint

Would a cop have reasonable suspicion here?

What if a third generation Mexican was standing outside smoking? Or waiting out front to meet a buddy to help load up a truck with a bunch of supplies? Or waiting for his wife to show up so she could pick out the kitchen tile he's going to install?

I've been thinking about scenarios like this as well.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Sure there is. And just because rhetorical charges are made against law enforcement does make it less so. It's actually fairly easy to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal. In fact, it's fairly easy to prosecute almost anything. The only trick is doing so within the confines we've placed ourselves in. It would be rather simple - if we ignore the Constitution for a second - to empower all police officers to arrest and detain anyone that fits the physical description of what the predominant characterists of an illegal immigrant are. We could further have a magistrate review the arrest within 24 hours and if found to be illegal, either execute or deport that person. Frankly, our current legal system wouldn't have to be adjusted too much to do that if we wanted it.But of course we don't want to go to that extreme and we can't ignore the Constitution. However, your statement that we "can't " prosecute it is wrong.

I also find your jump to illegal activities on the part of otherwise law abiding citizens to be rather short sighted, bigoted and ignorant. Why is it that a lawful group of people cannot peacefully petition their government without resort to discord and rioting?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No, not directed at you Yankee. And no, I admittedly have not read the whole thread. My post was just a general observation. Many restrictionists make what amounts to moral argument against people who are illegally present in the US, based on the mere fact that they may have violated the law. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people have committed minor violations of the law (speeding, underage drinking, etc.). To me at least, it raises questions regarding whether the true motivation of these people is fealty to the law or something else.

Fair enough, although I don't find it very helpful to measure people's opinion on this topic against their traffic record. We call minor violations of the law minor because of the ffect that specific act has and the punishment for it. Speeding 5 miles over isn't as dangerous and the fine isn't as big as speeding 40 miles over - unless you are in a school zone, construction zone or any other manner of exempt locations where speeding fines are automatically doubled. In the end, the argument that surrounds minor offenses is one of simple resources. We don't want cops enforcing every single traffic ordinance every single time it is violated if that means they ignore murder, rape, larceny and other forms of crime. No one is ever going to make a valid argument that each and every crime is absolutely equal in the eys of the law, but they are all crimes.The problem with illegal immigration is that it is not only a crime in and of itself, it has become a problem in many other aspects of our country, whether it be taxation policy, law enforcement or private property rights. The problem is creating whole new avenues of other problems that spiral into bigger issues to deal with. If we were solely dealing with the issue in terms of people coming to work and that's it we could adjust tax law to compensate. But that isn't it. We have crimes committed, we have drug wars going on, we have foreign militaries and police coming over our border, we have private property owners under seige in some areas, state government overwhelmed in others, and even an easy scapegoat for the under and unemployed to target. It's not a simple situation at all and bringin down to the simple statement that they come here to work is naive. Of course they do - this is still the greatest and freest country in the world - why wouldn't they want to come here.But if there are not going to be reasonable methods of doing so, then we have problems. We can't have a closed border. Anyone who argues it misses most of the point of the purpose of this nation. But we also simply can't have a 100% open border without oversight. Not within the current legal structure we have. There is a reasonable middle, but the people that are attacking the people of Arizona need to udnerstand that the front line of this issue is really a front line - it isn't some theoretical argument on the movement of spending power over the course of a population that can be studied by graphs with old white guys in universities. There are on the ground every day problems that we need to get a hold of.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I get stopped and asked for I.D. after coming out of Home Depot with a gallon of paint

Would a cop have reasonable suspicion here?

What if he decided to wear his sombrero that day...

...while eating some homemade tortilla chips under a live oak?

 

[phthalatemagic]

Is this where we do the non-sequitur gotcha stuff? Lucky for us all, they can carry around their National ID card the Ds wanted so badly at all times. No biggie

 

[timschochet]

there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants. No matter how you try it, you're going to end up with charges of racism, rioting, discord, polarization of ethnic groups, and in the end you'll have gained nothing.

Sure there is. And just because rhetorical charges are made against law enforcement does make it less so. It's actually fairly easy to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal. In fact, it's fairly easy to prosecute almost anything. The only trick is doing so within the confines we've placed ourselves in. It would be rather simple - if we ignore the Constitution for a second - to empower all police officers to arrest and detain anyone that fits the physical description of what the predominant characterists of an illegal immigrant are. We could further have a magistrate review the arrest within 24 hours and if found to be illegal, either execute or deport that person. Frankly, our current legal system wouldn't have to be adjusted too much to do that if we wanted it.But of course we don't want to go to that extreme and we can't ignore the Constitution. However, your statement that we "can't " prosecute it is wrong.

I also find your jump to illegal activities on the part of otherwise law abiding citizens to be rather short sighted, bigoted and ignorant. Why is it that a lawful group of people cannot peacefully petition their government without resort to discord and rioting?

I suppose I could have written, there is no way to prosecute illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants without tearing up the Constitution, but in point of fact, I don't think as a people we're capable of it anyhow. There are certain laws which simply cannot be effectively enforced, and this is one of them. A historically analogy would be the Fugitive Slave Law. It was enacted by the Federal government as part of the Compromise of 1850, but attempted enforcement proved impossible, and caused the same sort of response I am predicting now. Perhasp you feel it's short-sided, ignorant, bigoted, etc. But there are plenty of historical examples to choose from, that being one of them. People do not respond well to percieved injustice.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I haven't read the thread but I am 100% against this legislation as it is racist, hateful and encourages racial profiling.Not only that but it is almost certainly going to mean more of those wet****s fleeing Arizona and moving to states like Pennsylvania.

 

[whitem0nkey]

Hey, Arizona. If you really wanted to end illegal immigration, you should fine anyone who hired an undocumented worker. But that isn't the point, is it?

Fine them for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars, make it financially a liability to hire illegal aliens so legal citizens and only legal immigrants with work visas get the job.

Perhaps you should read the law. There are many changes to how employers must verify and keep records (for years after a person leaves) for all employees.

stop playing games.It's mildly enforced (and im being generous here). The problem is that the law requires that a company knowingly hire illegal immigrants. If a company is cited they'll usually claim that the employee presented falsified documents.

and they get away with it.

AGain, if you actually read the law itself and not the talking points you are working from, you will see a further caveat to the hiring legal documented worker clause that requires updated data based on some Arizona database (that I have no idea at all how it works but I do remember reading about it).If your argument here is a lack of enforcement of all of the provisions of the law, maybe we should give them more then a few days to track the progress?

Arizona has an employer sanctions law on the books that requires employers to use E-Verify. However, its somewhat toothless.

As of December 2008, 5.6 percent of Arizona businesses had signed up with E-verify

And penalties are silly. One Subway got caught employing illegal immigrants and got fined $431 and forced to close for full 2 days.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Your dismissive attitude of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this any subject as being either motivated by racism, a hypocritical populist or just not very bright is why people say you aren't helping your side of the argument.

This is the world of timschochet.

 

[Statorama]

Hey, Arizona. If you really wanted to end illegal immigration, you should fine anyone who hired an undocumented worker. But that isn't the point, is it?Fine them for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars, make it financially a liability to hire illegal aliens so legal citizens and only legal immigrants with work visas get the job.

But then you have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants that have no other way to earn money than turning to crime.

 

[Statorama]

My quick glance at MSNBC had the headline "New Arizona Immigration law makes it a crime to be an illegal alien"

 

[bigbottom]

E-verify has lots of problems in terms of glitches, inaccuracies, etc.

 

[Statorama]

When I was in my teens cops used to hassle us for ID when we were hanging out at night, and I'm as white as Groundskeeper Willie.

Isn't that one of the first things cops do in any situation? "Hey buddy, you got some ID on you?"

 

[Twilight]

Arizona agency seeks federal help on immigration law

The Arizona agency tasked with training 15,000 law officers to enforce the state's controversial new illegal immigration law has asked federal authorities for assistance, but administration officials say it is unclear whether the government will help.

Lyle Mann, executive director of the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, says federal assistance is "critical" to what he describes as an unprecedented effort to prepare officers as soon as this summer to enforce the law, which gives local police authority to identify and arrest illegal immigrants.

"Participation by federal authorities is critical in ascertaining how to implement a standard of enforcement," says Mann, who made the request through the Department of Homeland Security's division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

President Obama, however, has ordered a Justice Department review of the measure's civil rights implications.

"That review," DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler says, "will inform the government's actions."

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., has urged the Obama administration "not to cooperate with the state of Arizona in its implementation and execution." In an April 23 letter to Obama, he called the law a "serious overstep of state authority in federal issues."

The legislation, signed Friday by Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, requires police to "determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state … if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S." There are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, state records show.

Brewer and other supporters, including Joe Arpaio, sheriff of metro Phoenix's sprawling Maricopa County, say the measure provides another tool to counter illegal immigration.

Opponents, including Democrat Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, say the law is "racist" and encourages racial profiling.

The measure takes effect 90 days after the state Legislature adjourns. With adjournment perhaps a week away, Mann says he may have to develop a curriculum and train all of the state's 15,000 police, sheriff's deputies, highway patrol officers and investigators by Aug. 1.

"Ninety days (to train officers) may be asking the impossible," says Democrat Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a member of the training board and critic of the law. "There are a huge number of very serious questions to be answered here, and 90 days is laughable."

 

[Smack Tripper]

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

A better question would be, how could it NOT be considered probable cause?"Let me see your documentation."

"No."

"Well okey dokey. Have a good day."

See my post above, this is how it already works with traffic stops IIRC. Same with DUI, no? A person's refusing to consent to a voluntary roadside test just deprives the officer of further evidence to form probable cause, refusal can't be used to justify a further intrusion as it's own probable cause. But I could be totally backwards on my understanding of that.

That's because if you're stopped for speeding, the contents of you trunk are not necessarily related to how fast your happen to be driving. So you can refuse the search. If you're stopped for being a suspicious Mexican, your documentation is central to you innocence or guilt.And also, if you refuse the DUI test, you get arrested anyway.

Honestly unsure of DUI laws. I'm sorry, I thought participation in a field sobriety test was voluntary, and that one was always free to refuse them without penalty.Edit: http://dui-lawyer-la.com/dui-tips-advice/f...sobriety-tests/

"In California and all other US states field sobriety tests are 100% voluntarily, unless you are under 21 or on parole. If you are over 21 and not on parole you have the right to refuse and there are no penalties whatsoever for refusing to take a field sobriety test."

I know this isnt' strictly related to this post, but the driving stuff is also different because it got branded as being a "privilege" as opposed to our supposedly inalienable we are granted by birthright as Americans.