My view on the Gas and Krisken Graph Measuring Contest:
When it REALLY gets going halfway through, that's when I'll be all like:My view on the Gas and Krisken Graph Measuring Contest:
In most sections of the country, an officer could NOT pull you over just to check your papers. You have to be visibly and obviously in violation of some law to be pulled over - run a red light, speeding, expired plates, etc. It used to be that the cop couldn't even pull you over for not wearing your seat belt even though it was against the law, though many places have upgraded seat belt infractions to "primary" offense status. But nowhere can a police officer just pull you over to check your insurance papers.2) What's the problem with a cop pulling you over for a routine check? If a police officer feels the need to pull me over for a check of my papers, I really don't mind. You're saying people object to a cop stopping them to see if they're legally insured, have the proper papers, a driving permit, whatever? No? Than why suddenly object if they're checking your ID card? Doesn't contain any really new info except nationality status.
We have official ID cards, though they are issued by states rather than the federal government.Ignoring the sudden budgetary crap thrown in....
1) Many, if not most, of these concerns could be avoided if people just had an official, federal ID card. I know the anglosaxon people don't like'm for some weird reason, but seriously. I dare you to make a forgery of a Belgian ID card that a cop won't spot miles away (well, with a chip reader, anyway :-P).
The problem is twofold. One, no one wants cops to "randomly" pull people over, as it would lead to certain people (dark skin, for example) getting pulled over all the time and others getting ignored. It's basically an invitation to harassment. Two, we specifically have provisions in our Constitution to protect against illegal searches. Cops just can't randomly start searching people, looking for violations even if they have no reason to suspect wrongdoing.2) What's the problem with a cop pulling you over for a routine check? If a police officer feels the need to pull me over for a check of my papers, I really don't mind. You're saying people object to a cop stopping them to see if they're legally insured, have the proper papers, a driving permit, whatever? No? Than why suddenly object if they're checking your ID card? Doesn't contain any really new info except nationality status.
You are totally, completely wrong on this. Completely. I love that your example of what is suspicious enough for a warrant check includes racial profiling in it.3) "Reasonable doubt" for being an illegal immigrant doesn't necessarily mean "racial profiling". Heck, we have people on this forum who are pasty white and mexican, and vice versa. Not speaking English, driving with foreign license plates, running from the police, not having an official address,... could be seen as suspicious enough to warrant a check, IMHO.
I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't make it right. We still want to protect the rights of innocent individuals from the government, which definitely includes being lumped together with criminals because of skin color, language, and so on.4) Racial profiling exists because it's effective. It's also illegal when carried too far. If a guy is robbed, -assuming- it'll be a black guy who did it and not even considering whites is wrong. Assuming the chances are higher, if the crime happened in a black neighbourhood, makes sense. Women in full body covering clothing are checked at airport security more thoroughly than you or me. WHy? Because they're more likely to hide something. And so on.
Sorry I was typing that and then called away for some work and continue typing but my brain kept going. I made some corrections and hopefully it made more senseI'm having a really hard time decoding all that.
United States v. State of Arizona said:Arizona immigration law decision:
I. What is enjoined
1. Requiring verification of immigration status: Requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.
Reasoning: Pre-empted by federal law because it creates an additional burden on the federal government by increasing the number of immigration-verification requests to the federal government.
2. Failure to carry immigration papers: Creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.
Reasoning: Pre-empted as an impermissible attempt to create its own state immigration scheme by altering the penalties established by Congress under the federal registration scheme.
3. Illegal for an illegal to solicit work: Creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work.
Reasoning: Pre-empted because there is a comprehensive federal scheme regulating employment of illegal immigrants.
4. Warrantless arrest for potentially removable alien: Authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
Reasoning: Pre-empted because determining whether a specific offense makes an alien removable is a tough decision and there is "a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens," thus impermissibly burdening legal aliens (and only the federal government can impose such burdens)
II. What is not enjoined?
1. No sanctuary cities: Prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.
2. Requiring cooperation with federal authorities: Requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to unlawfully present aliens.
3. Permitting civil suits for sanctuary cities: Allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
4. Human smuggling crimes: Amending the crime of human smuggling.
5. Crime to pick up day laborers: Creating a crime for stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic.
6. Knowing/intentional employment of illegal immigrants: Amending the crime of knowing employment of unauthorized aliens. Amending the crime of intentional employment of unauthorized aliens.
7. Employee verification: Amending the requirements for checking employment eligibility.
8. Funding for gang / immigrant enforcement: Creating the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund.
Whoa there. People being randomly pulled over is accepted - and, in fact, required - in most European countries. If americans want to, once again, consider rediculous things "rights", their call, but you'd better still pull over if yuo're in France or Germany and a police officer signals you, even if you're doing nothing wrong. How the heck are they supposed to check whether or not you're insured, or have a driver's permit, or whatever, if they're not allowed to randomly check up?The problem is twofold. One, no one wants cops to "randomly" pull people over, as it would lead to certain people (dark skin, for example) getting pulled over all the time and others getting ignored. It's basically an invitation to harassment. Two, we specifically have provisions in our Constitution to protect against illegal searches. Cops just can't randomly start searching people, looking for violations even if they have no reason to suspect wrongdoing.2) What's the problem with a cop pulling you over for a routine check? If a police officer feels the need to pull me over for a check of my papers, I really don't mind. You're saying people object to a cop stopping them to see if they're legally insured, have the proper papers, a driving permit, whatever? No? Than why suddenly object if they're checking your ID card? Doesn't contain any really new info except nationality status.
How so? None of things I mentioned refer in any way to race. Speaking English isn't a legal requirement, but not speaking it at all is a sign you're most likely an alien - and a badly integrated one at that .Sure you can be there legally...So? Reasonable doubt doesn't mean they're not allowed to be wrong. If a cop pulls me over and wants to see my tourist visa while I'm in the US, I don't have a problem with it. If a cop stops you in Belgium and you don't speak Dutch or French, expect to be ordered to show some official proof of what you're doing here.You are totally, completely wrong on this. Completely. I love that your example of what is suspicious enough for a warrant check includes racial profiling in it.3) "Reasonable doubt" for being an illegal immigrant doesn't necessarily mean "racial profiling". Heck, we have people on this forum who are pasty white and mexican, and vice versa. Not speaking English, driving with foreign license plates, running from the police, not having an official address,... could be seen as suspicious enough to warrant a check, IMHO.
Better to have 1000 guilty go free than 1 innocent locked up, I'm all in favour. I'm not talking about locking everyone with a dark skin tone up just for the heck of it, I'm saying it's perfectly normal and OK for me to have a cop ask me for my papers to see whether I'm legal, and whatever. Setting the individual rights so supremely above all other concerns is asking for problems.I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't make it right. We still want to protect the rights of innocent individuals from the government, which definitely includes being lumped together with criminals because of skin color, language, and so on.4) Racial profiling exists because it's effective. It's also illegal when carried too far. If a guy is robbed, -assuming- it'll be a black guy who did it and not even considering whites is wrong. Assuming the chances are higher, if the crime happened in a black neighbourhood, makes sense. Women in full body covering clothing are checked at airport security more thoroughly than you or me. WHy? Because they're more likely to hide something. And so on.
I say continue to voice it (within the rules of the forum of course) I personally have change my mind many times in forums cause someone brought in a good argument*shrug* So? I'm not saying one way or the other is necessarily wrong, or better. I'm just saying what -I- find odd or strange about it, and how I'd look at it.
Believe me, I've long since stopped thinking a discussion on a forum could change minds. For me, it's a way to compare minds and reasoning, yes - not to try and win an argument.
Of course you're entitled to your own way of doing/looking at things. Doesn't mean it can't strike me as weird, or that I can't have an opinion about it, and voice it, too.
I also believe that the U.S. is still pretty young compare to the other European countries. We are under 300 years old So the ideas are still "fresh" per se (that is my opinion) but personal freedom is a BIGGIE here in the states. It is funny that a lot of people will "gloss" over many political stuff, but when it starts to intrude on YOUR wallet and personal freedom, then it gets ugly.I will agree with bubbles that we have a very different viewpoint on the world compared to Europe. We are incredibly capitalist, we have limited social programs, we have the largest and strongest military in the world, and yet, arguably, we have the most broad concept of freedom v government. Honestly it makes sense, as does the European system. Highly socialist = less personal freedom. Highly capitalist = more personal freedom.
Personally I think this is why this country works so well. There is a LOT of power in flux in America, so much so that if anyone had the motive and the ability to capture it and use it they could become the most powerful person in the world overnight. Obviously there are plenty of people with the motive, but the ability? Even the President has only limited capabilities when it comes to accessing that power and/or interfering with the rights of the population.
We are a country of rebels, and for some reason we never lost that mentality. Maybe its because nothing here is old, even tradition. Tradition is just just another kind of governance. Maybe it's because we are so isolated from Europe. Maybe it's because we are all a bunch of jingoistic neanderthalls. Maybe it's fallout from the Cold War. I choose the believe that our profound belief in personal freedom is a self-perpetuating concept with a positive feedback loop. When you embrace it and nurture it, it grows like kudzu.
"brown" people in AZ maybe but in Cali? it would be them yellow people with skinny eyes... can't trust them I tell ya! ^_~You guys are way overthinking this. After all, clearly the only issue at stake here is whether or not you hate brown people, am I right?
"brown" people in AZ maybe but in Cali? it would be them yellow people with skinny eyes... can't trust them I tell ya! ^_~[/QUOTE]You guys are way overthinking this. After all, clearly the only issue at stake here is whether or not you hate brown people, am I right?
"brown" people in AZ maybe but in Cali? it would be them yellow people with skinny eyes... can't trust them I tell ya! ^_~[/QUOTE]You guys are way overthinking this. After all, clearly the only issue at stake here is whether or not you hate brown people, am I right?
"brown" people in AZ maybe but in Cali? it would be them yellow people with skinny eyes... can't trust them I tell ya! ^_~[/QUOTE]You guys are way overthinking this. After all, clearly the only issue at stake here is whether or not you hate brown people, am I right?
"brown" people in AZ maybe but in Cali? it would be them yellow people with skinny eyes... can't trust them I tell ya! ^_~[/QUOTE]You guys are way overthinking this. After all, clearly the only issue at stake here is whether or not you hate brown people, am I right?