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

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

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

Jesus.

 

[Statorama]

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.

It doesn't seem logical that you wouldn't be offended by that. It's something you've worked hard to obtain that other people are stealing.It's like working your butt off to get into a good college then finding out your roommate got in with straight D's just because his dad was golf buddies with the dean. I don't see how you wouldn't feel cheated somehow.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

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.

The law is immoral in this instance, so I'm perfectly ok with people committing a crime to break this law. That said, I'd prefer that we change the immoral law.

 

[otello]

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.

I disagree, Tim. I quoted a provocative piece about the apparent hypocrisy of the Mexican government's immigration policy as compared to ours, and you say the following:"Regarding the Mexican laws restricting immigrants: there is a reason we are one of the greatest places to live, and Mexico, despite having great natural resources, wonderful people and a growing economy, has so much destitution, corruption, and misery. I am very thankful that we are not Mexico, and I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to imitate that government."

Now, I'm not saying that you called me stupid or you were dismissive, but clearly the manner in which you demonstrate disagreement with fellow FFAers or otherwise make your point leaves, for some, little to be desired. To be fair, you are not the only one guilty of this transgression, but you may be one of its more notorious practitioners.

 

[Zow]

[Only true for the field sobriety test. If you refuse a breath test, your license will be suspended.

Not to be a #### but someone is going to wrongly relay on the DUI misinformation being given. This sort of thing is incredibly state-specific and I recommend checking the MVD/criminal statutes of your states and simply ignoring anything you have read in this read.

 

[timschochet]

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.

It doesn't seem logical that you wouldn't be offended by that. It's something you've worked hard to obtain that other people are stealing.It's like working your butt off to get into a good college then finding out your roommate got in with straight D's just because his dad was golf buddies with the dean. I don't see how you wouldn't feel cheated somehow.

He's not offended, Stat, because its not like that at all. It's not a question of deserved and deserved, that the "legal" immigrant somehow works harder than the "illegal" immigrant or somehow waited paitently in some line somewhere. For most of the illegals, there is no line! My grandmother found herself at the end of World War II in Vienna, but in the part occupied by the Soviet Union. In order to get to the American sector, she had to sneak through a sewer system with my dad. If she had been caught, she would have been shot by the Red Army. She did this because she had a sister in law in America, and she knew that if she could reach the Americans she would be able to come here. The whole time I knew her, she always told me whenever this issue came up: "that could have been me. I would have done anything to get here. I would have broken any law."

 

[LHUCKS]

Joe Arpaio says his deputies arrest very few non-Hispanics.

LINK



I'm in Uruguay right now and I'm completely enthralled with what's going down back home...very interesting on several levels.

 

[timschochet]

I disagree, Tim. I quoted a provocative piece about the apparent hypocrisy of the Mexican government's immigration policy as compared to ours, and you say the following:"Regarding the Mexican laws restricting immigrants: there is a reason we are one of the greatest places to live, and Mexico, despite having great natural resources, wonderful people and a growing economy, has so much destitution, corruption, and misery. I am very thankful that we are not Mexico, and I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to imitate that government."Now, I'm not saying that you called me stupid or you were dismissive, but clearly the manner in which you demonstrate disagreement with fellow FFAers or otherwise make your point leaves, for some, little to be desired. To be fair, you are not the only one guilty of this transgression, but you may be one of its more notorious practitioners.

I admit when I get emotionally involved in a topic such as this one, I may use phrases that I probably shouldn't, like "anyone in their right mind". Mea culpa. But I assure you it was not meant personally and is never intentionally directed at anyone- its simply a response to an argument in general. But I shouldn't do it anyhow, and if you took offense, I apologize; it was not intended.

 

[videoguy505]

I'm in Uruguay right now

Dirección Nacional de Migración notified. Better keep your ID handy! Wouldn't want any unfortunate "misunderstandings".

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

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.

Do you have a receipt for that paint?

 

[otello]

I disagree, Tim. I quoted a provocative piece about the apparent hypocrisy of the Mexican government's immigration policy as compared to ours, and you say the following:"Regarding the Mexican laws restricting immigrants: there is a reason we are one of the greatest places to live, and Mexico, despite having great natural resources, wonderful people and a growing economy, has so much destitution, corruption, and misery. I am very thankful that we are not Mexico, and I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to imitate that government."Now, I'm not saying that you called me stupid or you were dismissive, but clearly the manner in which you demonstrate disagreement with fellow FFAers or otherwise make your point leaves, for some, little to be desired. To be fair, you are not the only one guilty of this transgression, but you may be one of its more notorious practitioners.

I admit when I get emotionally involved in a topic such as this one, I may use phrases that I probably shouldn't, like "anyone in their right mind". Mea culpa. But I assure you it was not meant personally and is never intentionally directed at anyone- its simply a response to an argument in general. But I shouldn't do it anyhow, and if you took offense, I apologize; it was not intended.

You don't owe me an apology, nor am I asking for one. I think that you get my drift. Thanks.

 

[KCC]

Everyone who can handle a couple swear words needs to see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW20EMJr6o4

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I'm in Uruguay right now and I'm completely enthralled with what's going down back home...very interesting on several levels.

I hope that you get strip searched at passport control. Kidding!!(edited due to vulgar commentary)

 

[The Z Machine]

I'm in Uruguay right now and I'm completely enthralled with what's going down back home...very interesting on several levels.

I hope that you get sodomized at passport control.

yikes

 

[Neofight]

I'm in Uruguay right now and I'm completely enthralled with what's going down back home...very interesting on several levels.

I hope that you get sodomized at passport control.

Funny, but in a state known for its bassackward legislation, they actually got this one right a few years back.

 

[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.

It doesn't seem logical that you wouldn't be offended by that. It's something you've worked hard to obtain that other people are stealing.It's like working your butt off to get into a good college then finding out your roommate got in with straight D's just because his dad was golf buddies with the dean. I don't see how you wouldn't feel cheated somehow.

I always chuckle when people imply that some people "deserve" to be here and some people don't. I derived citizenship from my mom, who spent over 20 years acquiring citizenship from the day she filed her visa to the day she was naturalized. She fled an oppressive regime, received two masters degrees and a PhD here, waited a stupid amount of time for her green card petition to make it through the most tightly restricted quota country, and is now a nuclear physicist working for the United Nations specializing in non-proliferation. The fact that this person was threatened with deportation, almost lost her visa twice, and almost lost her lawful permanent residency twice, is completely asinine. She underwent the process because she was made to, not because she wanted to. To this day she's angry because her health is poor from the work she's had to do, and that she could have had her current job 10 years ago if she didn't have to keep waiting. I'm the beneficiary of her labor.I like your education analogy since I work in higher education, but I think it needs to be revised. Let's say this country is college. You are the legacy admission. You could be the world's biggest ignoramus but you were guaranteed admission from birth because you are your dad's son. I'm the guy from a privileged background. Given my circumstances, I didn't do anything terribly special. I just followed the instructions of the people around me and good things happened. Then there's Pedro. Pedro wasn't admitted. However, Pedro is a go-getter. He comes to college anyways but doesn't tell anyone he wasn't admitted. He goes to the same classes, takes the same tests, forges documents when necessary so he can stay in the university system. He can't use campus resources like we can because he's not legitimate. He has no advisors, no tutors, can't even register for classes. He just shows up and convinces the professors he's really in the class. Four years later we're all set to graduate. However, upon further research it's discovered that Pedro was never admitted and his degree conferral is now in question.The legacies, who all "deserved" their admissions, are screaming bloody murder because how dare Pedro call himself a student like them! He was never admitted! He doesn't deserve to stand on the same stage. All of us privileged high school students are nodding our heads and going, "Wow, it's incredible what he's been able to do. We ended up in the same place and he's had to work 5x as hard and tolerate 10x as much stupidity." I think it's perfectly logical to not be offended by someone like that. The 70% of Latino voters who supported immigration reform in the 2008 presidential election agree. Maybe the better question is why are you offended?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I like your education analogy since I work in higher education, but I think it needs to be revised. Let's say this country is college. You are the legacy admission. You could be the world's biggest ignoramus but you were guaranteed admission from birth because you are your dad's son. I'm the guy from a privileged background. Given my circumstances, I didn't do anything terribly special. I just followed the instructions of the people around me and good things happened. Then there's Pedro. Pedro wasn't admitted. However, Pedro is a go-getter. He comes to college anyways but doesn't tell anyone he wasn't admitted. He goes to the same classes, takes the same tests, forges documents when necessary so he can stay in the university system. He can't use campus resources like we can because he's not legitimate. He has no advisors, no tutors, can't even register for classes. He just shows up and convinces the professors he's really in the class. Four years later we're all set to graduate. However, upon further research it's discovered that Pedro was never admitted and his degree conferral is now in question.

Interesting.

 

[Oliver Humanzee]

I always chuckle when people imply that some people "deserve" to be here and some people don't. I derived citizenship from my mom, who spent over 20 years acquiring citizenship from the day she filed her visa to the day she was naturalized. She fled an oppressive regime, received two masters degrees and a PhD here, waited a stupid amount of time for her green card petition to make it through the most tightly restricted quota country, and is now a nuclear physicist working for the United Nations specializing in non-proliferation. The fact that this person was threatened with deportation, almost lost her visa twice, and almost lost her lawful permanent residency twice, is completely asinine. She underwent the process because she was made to, not because she wanted to. To this day she's angry because her health is poor from the work she's had to do, and that she could have had her current job 10 years ago if she didn't have to keep waiting. I'm the beneficiary of her labor.I like your education analogy since I work in higher education, but I think it needs to be revised. Let's say this country is college. You are the legacy admission. You could be the world's biggest ignoramus but you were guaranteed admission from birth because you are your dad's son. I'm the guy from a privileged background. Given my circumstances, I didn't do anything terribly special. I just followed the instructions of the people around me and good things happened. Then there's Pedro. Pedro wasn't admitted. However, Pedro is a go-getter. He comes to college anyways but doesn't tell anyone he wasn't admitted. He goes to the same classes, takes the same tests, forges documents when necessary so he can stay in the university system. He can't use campus resources like we can because he's not legitimate. He has no advisors, no tutors, can't even register for classes. He just shows up and convinces the professors he's really in the class. Four years later we're all set to graduate. However, upon further research it's discovered that Pedro was never admitted and his degree conferral is now in question.The legacies, who all "deserved" their admissions, are screaming bloody murder because how dare Pedro call himself a student like them! He was never admitted! He doesn't deserve to stand on the same stage. All of us privileged high school students are nodding our heads and going, "Wow, it's incredible what he's been able to do. We ended up in the same place and he's had to work 5x as hard and tolerate 10x as much stupidity." I think it's perfectly logical to not be offended by someone like that. The 70% of Latino voters who supported immigration reform in the 2008 presidential election agree. Maybe the better question is why are you offended?

Thanks for that.

 

[Shirtless]

I always chuckle when people imply that some people "deserve" to be here and some people don't. I derived citizenship from my mom, who spent over 20 years acquiring citizenship from the day she filed her visa to the day she was naturalized. She fled an oppressive regime, received two masters degrees and a PhD here, waited a stupid amount of time for her green card petition to make it through the most tightly restricted quota country, and is now a nuclear physicist working for the United Nations specializing in non-proliferation. The fact that this person was threatened with deportation, almost lost her visa twice, and almost lost her lawful permanent residency twice, is completely asinine. She underwent the process because she was made to, not because she wanted to. To this day she's angry because her health is poor from the work she's had to do, and that she could have had her current job 10 years ago if she didn't have to keep waiting. I'm the beneficiary of her labor.I like your education analogy since I work in higher education, but I think it needs to be revised. Let's say this country is college. You are the legacy admission. You could be the world's biggest ignoramus but you were guaranteed admission from birth because you are your dad's son. I'm the guy from a privileged background. Given my circumstances, I didn't do anything terribly special. I just followed the instructions of the people around me and good things happened. Then there's Pedro. Pedro wasn't admitted. However, Pedro is a go-getter. He comes to college anyways but doesn't tell anyone he wasn't admitted. He goes to the same classes, takes the same tests, forges documents when necessary so he can stay in the university system. He can't use campus resources like we can because he's not legitimate. He has no advisors, no tutors, can't even register for classes. He just shows up and convinces the professors he's really in the class. Four years later we're all set to graduate. However, upon further research it's discovered that Pedro was never admitted and his degree conferral is now in question.The legacies, who all "deserved" their admissions, are screaming bloody murder because how dare Pedro call himself a student like them! He was never admitted! He doesn't deserve to stand on the same stage. All of us privileged high school students are nodding our heads and going, "Wow, it's incredible what he's been able to do. We ended up in the same place and he's had to work 5x as hard and tolerate 10x as much stupidity." I think it's perfectly logical to not be offended by someone like that. The 70% of Latino voters who supported immigration reform in the 2008 presidential election agree. Maybe the better question is why are you offended?

Thanks for that.

You're welcome. I should add that if my mom was unable to come/stay here documented, there isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that she would have come/stayed undocumented. Why wouldn't she? More importantly, would you really want someone like that to stay away?

 

[LHUCKS]

You're welcome. I should add that if my mom was unable to come/stay here documented, there isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that she would have come/stayed undocumented. Why wouldn't she? More importantly, would you really want someone like that to stay away?

The problem isn't immigrants like your mom.

 

[Shirtless]

You're welcome. I should add that if my mom was unable to come/stay here documented, there isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that she would have come/stayed undocumented. Why wouldn't she? More importantly, would you really want someone like that to stay away?

The problem isn't immigrants like your mom.

The problem is immigrants like... whom? Pedro?Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't support it because of "respect for the law." Speaking of the bill, if my mom and I lived in Arizona, we'd be stopped and asked for our papers. If I actually lowered myself to show my papers, my mom would never speak to me again.

 

[Agent 47]

I like your education analogy since I work in higher education, but I think it needs to be revised. Let's say this country is college. You are the legacy admission. You could be the world's biggest ignoramus but you were guaranteed admission from birth because you are your dad's son. I'm the guy from a privileged background. Given my circumstances, I didn't do anything terribly special. I just followed the instructions of the people around me and good things happened. Then there's Pedro. Pedro wasn't admitted. However, Pedro is a go-getter. He comes to college anyways but doesn't tell anyone he wasn't admitted. He goes to the same classes, takes the same tests, forges documents when necessary so he can stay in the university system. He can't use campus resources like we can because he's not legitimate. He has no advisors, no tutors, can't even register for classes. He just shows up and convinces the professors he's really in the class. Four years later we're all set to graduate. However, upon further research it's discovered that Pedro was never admitted and his degree conferral is now in question.

Interesting.

I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than stealing.

 

[The Z Machine]

Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't support it because of "respect for the law."

If you weren't trying to have a conversation with them (I'm assuming you weren't), then that behavior is disgusting.Those are the people that should be deexported.

 

[LHUCKS]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.What is your take on Arpaio's quote...do you think he's lying?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.

Shirtless>use this on Clucks

Unless you change your tone and start behaving like an adult, I'm really not interested in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[LHUCKS]

Shirtless>use this on Clucks

Yeah, because the two are even remotely close.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Shirtless>use this on Clucks

Yeah, because the two are even remotely close.

Nice try Merlin.

 

[Twilight]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.What is your take on Arpaio's quote...do you think he's lying?

Why would someone think someone as honest and clean as Arpaio would lie?

 

[timschochet]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.What is your take on Arpaio's quote...do you think he's lying?

Why would someone think someone as honest and clean as Arpaio would lie?

Arpaio is under investigation for several irregularities. Per Wiki:New reports show that, under Arpaio, the MCSO may be improperly clearing as many as 75% of cases without arrest or proper investigation.[38][39][40][41] The sheriff's office has failed to properly investigate serious crimes, including the rape of a 14 year old girl by classmates,[42][43] the rape of a 15 year old girl by two strangers,[44][45] and the rape of a 13 year old girl by her father.[44][46] These cases were "exceptionally cleared" without investigation or even identifying a suspect in one case which are not in accordance with the FBI standards for exceptional clearance.[44][47] The case of the 15 year old girl, the case was closed within one month and before DNA testing was even complete, the 13 year old's because her mother didn't want to "to pursue this investigation," and the 14 year old's because a suspect declined to come in for questioning.[42][44] In a statement to ABC15, the Sheriff's Office claimed, "The Goldwater Institute’s report cites the FBI’s Uniform Code Reporting handbook, which is a voluntary crime-reporting program to compile statistical information and reports. The UCR is not intended for oversight on how law enforcement agencies clear cases...The Sheriff’s Office has its own criteria for clearing cases."[48]

 

[tommyGunZ]

You're welcome. I should add that if my mom was unable to come/stay here documented, there isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that she would have come/stayed undocumented. Why wouldn't she? More importantly, would you really want someone like that to stay away?

The problem isn't immigrants like your mom.

Actually, the problem isn't immigrants, according to the data that says natives are more likely to commit crimes than immigrants.But as always, it's easier to point at people who don't look like us and blame them for our problems.

 

[Neofight]

Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't support it because of "respect for the law."

You weren't in Alabama, were you shirtless? It seems as though Tim James doesn't want to let Jan Brewer and crazy AZ get all the attention, much less listen to any language besides the mother tongue.

 

[Gambino]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.What is your take on Arpaio's quote...do you think he's lying?

I can't imagine the outrage you'd express if this was being proposed in the South instead of your beloved Arizona.

 

[LHUCKS]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.What is your take on Arpaio's quote...do you think he's lying?

Why would someone think someone as honest and clean as Arpaio would lie?

Arpaio is under investigation for several irregularities. Per Wiki:

They've been trying to get him for YEARS.

 

[LHUCKS]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.What is your take on Arpaio's quote...do you think he's lying?

I can't imagine the outrage you'd express if this was being proposed in the South instead of your beloved Arizona.

Two completely different situations. The differences are obvious....to most of us.

 

[Gambino]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.What is your take on Arpaio's quote...do you think he's lying?

I can't imagine the outrage you'd express if this was being proposed in the South instead of your beloved Arizona.

Two completely different situations. The differences are obvious....to most of us.

Believe want you want to believe, if that helps make you feel better about supporting something that is rooted in bigotry.

 

[LHUCKS]

But as always, it's easier to point at people who don't look like us and blame them for our problems.

So you're going to conveniently ignore Arpaio's quote...nice.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I realized something last night. In the discussion about how this turns Arizona into a police state, references to Nazis, etc. the reply has been along the lines (not necessarily just in this thread) that we need to trust and respect the professionalism of our law enforcement community to properly uphold the law. That it is a poor reflection on those with these concerns that they have such little faith in those that work so hard to protect us. More or less.

Yet, here we are discussing a law that basically strips these trusted and respected professionals in law enforcement from using their discretion, their best judgement in performing their jobs.

So which is it? Can we put our faith in these guys or not?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

It seems to me that they are trying to be mindful of terry stops based solely on skin color which are specifically barred by this law and Terry. Lawful contact by a police officer seems to be that contact which results from reasonable suspicion and so forth. I think this language, for instance, refutes the post made earlier that went along the lines of saying, well if a cop finds a rape victim that turns out to be illegal she should be arrested instead of cared for, or something along those lines. I'm willing to bet such a proactive enforcement instead of reactive protection goes against the reasonableness of the act.As to your second part and the detention question, I don't know. The reasonable language makes it seem like detention is not an option because it doesn't seem very reasonable or practicable to detain every person that could fall under this solely for an identity check, but then again I can see the pitfall that ensues because how else do you make sure you did the search right. It's an interesting question.

 

[Bronco Billy]

But as always, it's easier to point at people who don't look like us and blame them for our problems.

And one of our biggest problems is that despite being a nation of laws, our representatives in Washington are deciding which laws are convenient to enforce and which they'll choose not to enforce. But by not enforcing the laws that protect our borders, innocent people are suffering greatly - ranchers killed, people kidnapped for ransom in Phoenix, the violence along the border created by Mexico refusing to police its own people. That doesn't even go into the economic drain that illegal immigrants put on an already fragile and strained US economy.So the people of Arizona finally said "enough" and created a set of state laws very similar - in fact, almost exactly parallel - to the Federal immigration laws, and intend to protect their citizens by actually enforcing them. What a novel concept. That's not so difficult for people to understand, is it? Even someone like you.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

Perhaps. I don't knwo Arizona law. I know that a provision of this new law is that the business will lose its operating license. If that was a law in New Jersey it would destroy small businesses because our pro-consumer anti-fraud laws require just about every single business to have some form of license to operate or they open themselves up to mandatory penalties that are draconian. It isn't a risk many would be willing to take.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You're welcome. I should add that if my mom was unable to come/stay here documented, there isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that she would have come/stayed undocumented. Why wouldn't she? More importantly, would you really want someone like that to stay away?

The problem isn't immigrants like your mom.

Actually, the problem isn't immigrants, according to the data that says natives are more likely to commit crimes than immigrants.But as always, it's easier to point at people who don't look like us and blame them for our problems.

It's fairly obvious in this thread that the posters who fall back on racism, color of skin, and they don't look like us arguments have brought absolutely nothing to this conversation of any real import or relevance.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I realized something last night. In the discussion about how this turns Arizona into a police state, references to Nazis, etc. the reply has been along the lines (not necessarily just in this thread) that we need to trust and respect the professionalism of our law enforcement community to properly uphold the law. That it is a poor reflection on those with these concerns that they have such little faith in those that work so hard to protect us. More or less.

Yet, here we are discussing a law that basically strips these trusted and respected professionals in law enforcement from using their discretion, their best judgement in performing their jobs.

So which is it? Can we put our faith in these guys or not?

Can you explain the bolded portion? Don't they still have to use judgment?The vast majority of cops are good people doing a tough job. Unfortunately, because they have SO much power/control over people (or at least the potential for power and control), we've seen repeated instances of blatantly inappropriate police behavior. Further, just talk to any friends who are african-american (for example) and they'll tell you that racial profiling is alive and kicking. [i had a buddy who lived near San Fran - and his GF lived in Marin County. He got stopped at least once a month while visiting his GF. I'm not a fan of anecdotal evidence....but there are countless stories like this....]

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

::So the people of Arizona finally said "enough" and created a set of state laws very similar - in fact, almost exactly parallel - to the Federal immigration laws, and intend to protect their citizens by actually enforcing them. What a novel concept. That's not so difficult for people to understand, is it? Even someone like you.

Except that the state of Arizona, per the quote I cut out of the posted ACLU response is not authorized to create its own immigration law under the constitution, whether it parallels the federal law or not.Now I've heard what I just posted above quite a few times in the past concerning other jurisdictions that have done similar things. What I don't know is whether the courts have sided with the ACLU's stance as of yet, or would likely do so.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I realized something last night. In the discussion about how this turns Arizona into a police state, references to Nazis, etc. the reply has been along the lines (not necessarily just in this thread) that we need to trust and respect the professionalism of our law enforcement community to properly uphold the law. That it is a poor reflection on those with these concerns that they have such little faith in those that work so hard to protect us. More or less.Yet, here we are discussing a law that basically strips these trusted and respected professionals in law enforcement from using their discretion, their best judgement in performing their jobs. So which is it? Can we put our faith in these guys or not?

I haven't argued your first point at all. I think your second point is actually wrong. This does nothing to strip discretion. I could argue it actually gives them more and relies more on the beat walking on the ground police officer and his instincts and knowledge of his territory. Now, whether that is a good thing or not......

 

[Bronco Billy]

::So the people of Arizona finally said "enough" and created a set of state laws very similar - in fact, almost exactly parallel - to the Federal immigration laws, and intend to protect their citizens by actually enforcing them. What a novel concept. That's not so difficult for people to understand, is it? Even someone like you.

Except that the state of Arizona, per the quote I cut out of the posted ACLU response is not authorized to create its own immigration law under the constitution, whether it parallels the federal law or not.Now I've heard what I just posted above quite a few times in the past concerning other jurisdictions that have done similar things. What I don't know is whether the courts have sided with the ACLU's stance as of yet, or would likely do so.

I haven't waded through this whole mess, BFS. Could you please give me a post number or a link to the ACLU claim of Constitutional inconsistency?

 

[LHUCKS]

You're welcome. I should add that if my mom was unable to come/stay here documented, there isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that she would have come/stayed undocumented. Why wouldn't she? More importantly, would you really want someone like that to stay away?

The problem isn't immigrants like your mom.

Actually, the problem isn't immigrants, according to the data that says natives are more likely to commit crimes than immigrants.But as always, it's easier to point at people who don't look like us and blame them for our problems.

It's fairly obvious in this thread that the posters who fall back on racism, color of skin, and they don't look like us arguments have brought absolutely nothing to this conversation of any real import or relevance.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I realized something last night. In the discussion about how this turns Arizona into a police state, references to Nazis, etc. the reply has been along the lines (not necessarily just in this thread) that we need to trust and respect the professionalism of our law enforcement community to properly uphold the law. That it is a poor reflection on those with these concerns that they have such little faith in those that work so hard to protect us. More or less.

Yet, here we are discussing a law that basically strips these trusted and respected professionals in law enforcement from using their discretion, their best judgement in performing their jobs.

So which is it? Can we put our faith in these guys or not?

Can you explain the bolded portion? Don't they still have to use judgment?The vast majority of cops are good people doing a tough job. Unfortunately, because they have SO much power/control over people (or at least the potential for power and control), we've seen repeated instances of blatantly inappropriate police behavior. Further, just talk to any friends who are african-american (for example) and they'll tell you that racial profiling is alive and kicking. [i had a buddy who lived near San Fran - and his GF lived in Marin County. He got stopped at least once a month while visiting his GF. I'm not a fan of anecdotal evidence....but there are countless stories like this....]

The bolded part is this-

:

:

The bill makes it a state offense to lack proper immigration paperwork - and mandates officers to determine a person's immigration status if they suspect a violation.

Currently officers can only make such inquiries if the person is a suspect in another crime. The bill also allows citizens to compel police to comply with the law, preventing police from avoiding the issue in order to retain the trust of immigrants. However police can refrain from making immigration inquiries if they are impractical or if they would hinder another investigation.

:

:

I guess the last sentence give a little leeway for an officer's discretion, but mandating and compelling seem rather absolute if we are placing our trust in those on the "front lines".

 

[BassNBrew]

Yes, because all immigrants [except my mom] are criminals. All immigrants [except my mom] are drug dealers who will get every kid at the nearest elementary school irreversibly high. All immigrants will rape your daughters, except my mom who I guess will rape your sons instead.

Nobody is saying that...ace.What is your take on Arpaio's quote...do you think he's lying?

I can't imagine the outrage you'd express if this was being proposed in the South instead of your beloved Arizona.

Two completely different situations. The differences are obvious....to most of us.

Well duh...lots of brown people and bad college teams in your state, not so many black people or good college teams.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Found this little gem in the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This certainly seems applicable in regard to the Federal government failing to obey its Constitutional obligation to protect the citizens of Arizona against domestic violence.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I realized something last night. In the discussion about how this turns Arizona into a police state, references to Nazis, etc. the reply has been along the lines (not necessarily just in this thread) that we need to trust and respect the professionalism of our law enforcement community to properly uphold the law. That it is a poor reflection on those with these concerns that they have such little faith in those that work so hard to protect us. More or less.

Yet, here we are discussing a law that basically strips these trusted and respected professionals in law enforcement from using their discretion, their best judgement in performing their jobs.

So which is it? Can we put our faith in these guys or not?

Can you explain the bolded portion? Don't they still have to use judgment?The vast majority of cops are good people doing a tough job. Unfortunately, because they have SO much power/control over people (or at least the potential for power and control), we've seen repeated instances of blatantly inappropriate police behavior. Further, just talk to any friends who are african-american (for example) and they'll tell you that racial profiling is alive and kicking. [i had a buddy who lived near San Fran - and his GF lived in Marin County. He got stopped at least once a month while visiting his GF. I'm not a fan of anecdotal evidence....but there are countless stories like this....]

The bolded part is this-

:

:

The bill makes it a state offense to lack proper immigration paperwork - and mandates officers to determine a person's immigration status if they suspect a violation.

Currently officers can only make such inquiries if the person is a suspect in another crime. The bill also allows citizens to compel police to comply with the law, preventing police from avoiding the issue in order to retain the trust of immigrants. However police can refrain from making immigration inquiries if they are impractical or if they would hinder another investigation.

:

:

I guess the last sentence give a little leeway for an officer's discretion, but mandating and compelling seem rather absolute if we are placing our trust in those on the "front lines".

The problem, though, is that those quotes aren't the text of the law but a review or story on the law. The text of the law isn't as aboslute as the story makes it sound. It does not "mandate" that an officer determine status, it allows for an officer to determine status based on reasonable suspicion during a lawful contact. I hate sounding like a lawyer but there is a difference between the two. A mandate is something in which there is no discretion. The language of the law is very much one of discretion and circumstance.As for the second part, citizens compelling the determination isn't exactly clear to me. There is language in the actual law that allows business owners to make complaint to an officer that would result in the determination - the example was that given the new loitering and tresspass language in the bill, the manager of Home Depot can call the cops and complain about the group of Mexicans standing in his parking lot and due to that complaint the police would have lawful contact with those mexicans to determine if a crime is being committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, the determination of citizenship or status can be made. I'm not so sure that law simply allows for LHUCKS to walk up to a cop and say, "check that brown guys papers or I'll report you."