Search forums

Forums

Export thread

News: Majority American supports AZ immigration law

May 13, 2010#1

Chibibar

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/13/2747051/poll-majority-of-americans-back.html

Interesting Poll. I would love to see the breakdown on the poll of 69% that people wouldn't mind if the police officer stop them to ask for their ID.

Being Asian, I might not get stop as much in Texas, but maybe in Cali or New York where large influx of Asian coming in.

But my Hispanic friends wouldn't like being stop all the time if the police "thinks" they are illegal.

I wonder how would those 69% would mind after being stop everyday at least once for 2 weeks.

May 13, 2010#2

blotsfan

Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

May 13, 2010#3

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

Yes.

But critics and opponents say the wording of the bill means it "could" be interpreted as letting officers pull over motorists for being brown.

May 13, 2010#4

Dave

It's only for those who are "reasonable to assume" are illegals. So an illegal immigrant wife gets beaten by her illegal immigrant husband. Should she call the cops? If she does and he's shown as being illegal, they have reasonable suspicion that she might be and they could check her out, too.

So people will be loath to report crimes against them if they are not legit or if they are worried they will be hassled.

May 13, 2010#5

Troll

As with all polls, I would want to know the exact phrasing used in the questions. That can greatly affect the results. Still, it's interesting.

May 13, 2010#6

Chibibar

GasBandit;385213][QUOTE=blotsfan said:
Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

Yes.

But critics and opponents say the wording of the bill means it "could" be interpreted as letting officers pull over motorists for being brown.[/QUOTE]

actually the AZ law states that an officer can "suspect" of illegal. you can just drive around and the officer can "suspect you" or heck lets say you are walking, they can suspect you and then ask you to show proof.

The other state there is an actual clause they CAN'T do that unless the suspect is involve in another "crime"

May 13, 2010#7

Espy

Dave said:
It's only for those who are "reasonable to assume" are illegals. So an illegal immigrant wife gets beaten by her illegal immigrant husband. Should she call the cops? If she does and he's shown as being illegal, they have reasonable suspicion that she might be and they could check her out, too.

So people will be loath to report crimes against them if they are not legit or if they are worried they will be hassled.

This is true and a rather unescapable side effect of being in a country illegally. There are consequences to being in a country illegally that will affect one's life should they chose to do so. Notice I'm not advocating that the woman in a scenario like this be shipped off for merely reporting a crime (in fact I differ from most of my conservative brethren on this issue), but it is part of the reality of breaking the law. I'm honestly not sure how else to do it... but I'm open to suggestions.

May 13, 2010#8

Chibibar

I believe the immigration issue has to change in two folds.

Getting IN the country legally is truly pain the butt (from my friends who are FINALLY U.S. citizens after 10+ years of stay)
A process to ship people out of the country if they enter illegally.

The question would be why jail them locally? jailing people cost Tax payer's money. Why not turn them over to INS (after arresting them) and let the Feds handle it (like they are suppose to)
AZ laws pretty much at this time, jail them for x time, and then release :confused:

May 13, 2010#9

AshburnerX

The problem with shipping them back to Mexico is kinda troublesome, and almost always pointless. It's usually one of a few things.

- They are criminals and we are sending them back to jail time. Mexican jails are as overcrowded as ours.
- They are enemies of Drug Cartels, meaning we are sending them back to their DEATHS.
- They aren't criminals, so Mexico doesn't want them back and they won't stop them from trying to cross the border again.

We need to make the process to get in simpler, but we also need to tell the Mexican government that we're done with this shit.

May 13, 2010#10

drawn_inward

I've got plenty of international friends in grad school. Some want to be citizens. I don't care that it's a long process for them to become citizens. Why should we make it easier? How easy is it to become a citizen of other countries?

I don't care if they are being sent back to a country that doesn't want them. That sounds terribly cold, but why are we responsible for taking care of every schmo that comes here? I get why they want to be here. Life is better here. There is opportunity. They can go about legally or they can find another country that's easier to get into.

I don't have much of a problem with the AZ law.

May 13, 2010#11

Dei

It's easy for people who don't live in high illegal traffic areas to badmouth AZ's bill. Thankfully I'm not in an area of the SW where it's really bad, but it's gets frustrating for people in states like AZ. Yes, local jailing of illegals costs taxpayer money, and it IS a job for INS or what have you, but the government agencies really aren't doing shit to enforce immigration laws. I really think AZ is attempting to draw more attention to the problem more than anything else here. Someone has to be the one to put the issue out in the open, instead of it continuosly being buried.

May 13, 2010#12

Espy

I will also be honest, I really don't know about the "bad" stuff that you guys in the south deal with when it comes to illegal immigrants. I've heard a little about the gangs, drugs and violence but up here all I hear from our local media is sob stories about their hard lives, even when the illegal in question drove her van into school bus and killed four school kids.

May 13, 2010#13

crono1224

Dave said:
It's only for those who are "reasonable to assume" are illegals. So an illegal immigrant wife gets beaten by her illegal immigrant husband. Should she call the cops? If she does and he's shown as being illegal, they have reasonable suspicion that she might be and they could check her out, too.

So people will be loath to report crimes against them if they are not legit or if they are worried they will be hassled.

May 14, 2010#14

@Li3n

The problem with the law is that they will likely not be stopping anyone that conforms to the WASP standards...

dr_awkward said:
That sounds terribly cold, but why are we responsible for taking care of every schmo that comes here?

Because you celebrate the natives doing just that for you every year?!

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------

crono1224;385303][QUOTE=Dave said:
It's only for those who are "reasonable to assume" are illegals. So an illegal immigrant wife gets beaten by her illegal immigrant husband. Should she call the cops? If she does and he's shown as being illegal, they have reasonable suspicion that she might be and they could check her out, too.

So people will be loath to report crimes against them if they are not legit or if they are worried they will be hassled.

So this guy doing cocaine in his house, suddenly has it broken into, and is assaulted, does he call the cops? I get your point but they are here illegally, they are committing a crime. (I am not saying that she shouldn't call the cops and maybe its a shit storm either way, but she is hardly 'completely' innocent.[/QUOTE]

Because if she had stayed in Mexico she would have just gotten beaten there... and that makes it all right.

(reminds me of Bill O'Reilly vs Geraldo about an illegal drunken driver running over a girl, and how he shouldn't have been in the country, because obviously had he ran over a mexican girl it would have been a lesser tragedy).

May 14, 2010#15

D

Dubyamn

blotsfan said:
Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

May 14, 2010#16

Chibibar

Dubyamn;385480][QUOTE=blotsfan said:
Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.

Arizona never should have made this law but I can see where they are coming from because the federal government enforcement of illegal immigration is a joke without a particularly funny punch line.[/QUOTE]

I have posted the law somewhere (too lazy to look it up again) the 2 section from the AZ bill (only AZ) that pretty much give law enforcement to "suspect an illegal" if they come across one and ask to prove their citizenship/residence/green card/work visa whatever.

Now...... if AZ didn't have THAT clause in and have the one the other states are putting in i.e. the person in question need to be involve in something else FIRST before the officer can stop them. I have no problem with it. (well little problem but not that much problem)

As for other country? China - pay 1000$ and have a citizen sponsor you and you are a citizen takes less than a year, but then again, why would you want to? cause only citizen are allow to OWN property in China all others have to rent or get special government approval (like businesses)

Now of course even with the proper clause, the illegal will less likely to report a crime cause then he/she CAN be question if they are a citizen and more than likely be jailed. So there might be a smaller chance to solve crimes cause people don't want to get caught as an illegal. Of course this is not much an issue when your ratio of citizen higher than illegals, but in some areas where it is reverse, well..... you know where I'm getting at.

May 14, 2010#17

Dusty668

*shrug* When I was in Germany for 3 years I was stopped by american and german security/polizei up to 5+ times a day and had my 'papers' inspected. I wasn't thrilled with it, but it became routine, and I started planning my schedules around it. Have them handy, give no crap, pay attention, and when done move out worked fine for me. Will there be issues, freakouts and events, hell yeah, we're Americans. That's what we do.

When you get down to it, it is a state placing and enforcing a law that is already a federal requirement that ICE/INS enforces and has for years. We don't want to end up like them "Injuns".

"Because if she had stayed in Mexico she would have just gotten beaten there... and that makes it all right. "

No she got beaten because you played ball in third grade. Blaming someone's consequences on a law or forced relocation makes just as much sense, or as little. This is a whole planet, we do not have just two points here and there. Even in Mexico they have luggage for people to get the hell out of Capulin if they need to. Other options besides cops for this, local parish priest, support groups, non-disclosure county agencies-even if they cannot help directly, they will likely be able to find another family where she can hide. If it all goes to hell, charge him with indecent exposure to children so even when she gets deported he gets raped in jail for being a sex criminal.

May 14, 2010#18

@Li3n

Dubyamn;385480][QUOTE=blotsfan said:
Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.[/QUOTE]

Plus, isn't someone who's suspected of another crime gonna have to produce papers anyway?!

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

Dusty668 said:
*shrug* When I was in Germany for 3 years I was stopped by american and german security/polizei up to 5+ times a day and had my 'papers' inspected. I wasn't thrilled with it, but it became routine, and I started planning my schedules around it. Have them handy, give no crap, pay attention, and when done move out worked fine for me. Will there be issues, freakouts and events, hell yeah, we're Americans. That's what we do.

When you get down to it, it is a state placing and enforcing a law that is already a federal requirement that ICE/INS enforces and has for years. We don't want to end up like them "Injuns".

American security?! Where you going through some restricted areas or what?!

But the issue isn't random checks (which exist in most places, especially in the EU near former borders), but the fact that this law pretty much allows racial profiling by including the idea that some people just "look like immigrants".

Dusty668 said:
No she got beaten because you played ball in third grade. Blaming someone's consequences on a law or forced relocation makes just as much sense, or as little. This is a whole planet, we do not have just two points here and there. Even in Mexico they have luggage for people to get the hell out of Capulin if they need to. Other options besides cops for this, local parish priest, support groups, non-disclosure county agencies-even if they cannot help directly, they will likely be able to find another family where she can hide. If it all goes to hell, charge him with indecent exposure to children so even when she gets deported he gets raped in jail for being a sex criminal.

Which has little to do with your declaration of her being "hardly 'completely' innocent." and more with answering Chibi's concern again.

May 14, 2010#19

Dusty668

"American security?! Where you going through some restricted areas or what?!"

Nope I was blond American GI with a tan in West Germany walking, biking, and riding a bus around Nuernburg, Erlangen, Herzogenaruauch and other bavarian areas. This was right after Madrid Spain bombing April 12, 1985, Rhein-Main Air Base Aug. 8, 1985 car bomb, TWA flight 847 June 13, 1985, and Frankfurt November 24, 1985 bombing of a PX. Etcetera. The american patrols were not just random, they were intense as well. They had a quota of a certain number of stops to make each hour and a range of territory to cover.

European Fun in 1985 Click for More!!!

BTW the polizei had NO fuckaround tolerance AT ALL. They got your papers with automatic weapons drawn, locked and loaded. They told you so, they wanted you to know, "You have a deadly primed weapon aimed at you, and he/she is holding a readied firearm-that is pointed at you".

"Which has little to do with your declaration of her being "hardly 'completely' innocent." and more with answering Chibi's concern again."

I did not mean to imply anyone involved was guilty or innocent, I am just saying there are more than 2 options, especially when you know the option you are about to take can have consequences. Please consider any decoration withdrawn.

May 14, 2010#20

SpecialKO

Dubyamn;385480][QUOTE=blotsfan said:
Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

May 14, 2010#21

Chibibar

TeKeo;385898][QUOTE=Dubyamn;385480][QUOTE=blotsfan said:
Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

I don't think so everything I've heard is that this law gives cops the right to stop anybody they suspect of being illegal and allows them to be sued if they don't use this new power.

Arizona never should have made this law but I can see where they are coming from because the federal government enforcement of illegal immigration is a joke without a particularly funny punch line.[/QUOTE]

The text of the bill (now law) uses the words "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" as opposed to anything specifying the commission of a crime. Politifact consulted multiple sources, and came to the conclusion that the wording of the law is vague enough to give a police officer in AZ a wide, wide margin of error in determining what constitutes "reasonable" and that the claim by the bills' supporters that it is explicitly not allowed for this law to be applied without a crime being committed is completely untrue, being not present in the text.[/QUOTE]

now other states are drafting similar law BUT they are putting in the "legalease" in the law so there isn't such a wide berth that AZ laws has or even the possible of misunderstanding. Now I don't have a problem with those new laws being draft. It is just the this particular way the law is draft.

May 15, 2010#22

Covar

TeKeo;385898][QUOTE=Dubyamn;385480][QUOTE=blotsfan said:
Doesn't the law say that its only for people who are already suspected of another crime?

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)

oh here's another little part that is conveniently left out.

J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

May 15, 2010#23

Chibibar

right... reasonable suspicion. We are talking about the same thing here. If I was a cop and you look non white, I can reasonably suspect that you COULD be an illegal alien and as for proof of immigration/citizenship. You could be waiting for a bus, eating lunch, walking on the street, driving, anything. The thing is mainly different is that it give LOCAL enforcer to "reasonable suspicion" what is that? You look funny? unless these law enforcers can read mind, the only way to "reasonably suspect" is by look or action.

May 15, 2010#24

@Li3n

Dusty668 said:
"American security?! Where you going through some restricted areas or what?!"

Nope I was blond American GI with a tan in West Germany walking, biking, and riding a bus around Nuernburg, Erlangen, Herzogenaruauch and other bavarian areas. This was right after Madrid Spain bombing April 12, 1985, Rhein-Main Air Base Aug. 8, 1985 car bomb, TWA flight 847 June 13, 1985, and Frankfurt November 24, 1985 bombing of a PX. Etcetera. The american patrols were not just random, they were intense as well. They had a quota of a certain number of stops to make each hour and a range of territory to cover.

European Fun in 1985 Click for More!!!

BTW the polizei had NO fuckaround tolerance AT ALL. They got your papers with automatic weapons drawn, locked and loaded. They told you so, they wanted you to know, "You have a deadly primed weapon aimed at you, and he/she is holding a readied firearm-that is pointed at you".

Oh, before the fall of the wall, i suspected that after i posted.

But this isn't about random checks after some terrorist attacks, they weren't stopping you on "reasonable suspicion", but at random.

This law basically says that anyone who makes the cop thinks is an illegal, and lets not kid ourselves about what that will be.

May 15, 2010#25

ElJuski

hahahaha yeah, reasonable suspicion. Prove to me that people WON'T use that as a bullshit excuse to randomly pick off Mexicans. And please, just because ITS DA LAW doesn't change jack shit that racial profiling will be a method in force.

May 15, 2010#26

Dusty668

Well I'm not seeing how having to have a "bullshit reason" is worse than just at random. Would changing the law to allow cops to check anyone at all at any time be ok then?

May 15, 2010#27

Espy

You know, I'm not sure I support this law or not, I haven't spent much time reading up on it, but I do find the "well, cops might abuse it" argument to be a less than effective method of debating against it.

May 15, 2010#28

ElJuski

And I'm not saying that I have an easier fix. I'm just cynically pointing out the inevitability. As far as the law goes, I hope America's collective think tank can figure something out that is based on something more substantial than random or "random" checks. The most ideal fix would be to not have illegal immigrants and not have racially biased cops. But, alas.

What's that line from Watchmen? You know, the only bit of latin geeks can remember.

May 15, 2010#29

Officer_Charon

@JigglyMuff: because if we start making stops that are bad, even if they turn up contraband or illegal immigrants, it gets tossed out of the court. There's a legal term called "fruit of the poisonous tree." It means that if a stop or arrest is bad, then anything that comes about as a result of that stop is null and void.

It'd be like if I stopped a car that I suspected of carrying drugs. I HAVE, repeat HAVE to have a legal reason for stopping that car. Being a beat-up Chevy Caprice with primer patches in a low-income neighborhood is NOT a legal reason to conduct a stop.

If officers make bad stops and bad arrests, it costs the municipality money in legal costs, jail costs, and other associated costs. To say nothing of the liability incurred, civilly.

The AZ law provides state support for a Federal law, and may only be applied in the event of another crime being charged. From my understanding of this law, you cannot be sent to an AZ SOLELY on the basis of being an illegal immigrant.

Also, that latin is "quis custodiat ipsos custodes." And the answer to THAT would be "Internal Affairs.

May 15, 2010#30

Covar

Jigglymuff said:
hahahaha yeah, reasonable suspicion. Prove to me that people WON'T use that as a bullshit excuse to randomly pick off Mexicans. And please, just because ITS DA LAW doesn't change jack shit that racial profiling will be a method in force.

Throw out the whole thing then. Because dispite what I posted above, you seem to assume the cops will just ignore the part about "PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS." and the whole "any lawful contact made by law enforcement official", and do what ever the hell they feel like anyway. Lets go ahead and get rid of search warrants while we're at it. Cops will just make up any excuse to search a person anyway.

May 15, 2010#31

Chibibar

Officer_Charon said:
@JigglyMuff: because if we start making stops that are bad, even if they turn up contraband or illegal immigrants, it gets tossed out of the court. There's a legal term called "fruit of the poisonous tree." It means that if a stop or arrest is bad, then anything that comes about as a result of that stop is null and void.

It'd be like if I stopped a car that I suspected of carrying drugs. I HAVE, repeat HAVE to have a legal reason for stopping that car. Being a beat-up Chevy Caprice with primer patches in a low-income neighborhood is NOT a legal reason to conduct a stop.

If officers make bad stops and bad arrests, it costs the municipality money in legal costs, jail costs, and other associated costs. To say nothing of the liability incurred, civilly.

The AZ law provides state support for a Federal law, and may only be applied in the event of another crime being charged. From my understanding of this law, you cannot be sent to an AZ SOLELY on the basis of being an illegal immigrant.

Also, that latin is "quis custodiat ipsos custodes." And the answer to THAT would be "Internal Affairs.

hmm. I am reading this law a bit differently. Note only the AZ law that people seems to have issue with. Other states area already have laws in the works but worded differently like you said, the person in question has to commit a crime or stop for other reason THEN if you think they might be illegal immigrant you can ask and tack that on without repercussion as you have said.

That is what I see the main difference in AZ law. If I am reading this wrong, then I apologize, but it seems that other lawyers who have look into this law are seeing the same thing I am seeing (I had to read the law at least 3-4 times cause it was confusion the first two times around)

May 15, 2010#32

Officer_Charon

A lawful contact CAN mean just coming up to someone on the street and talking to them. HOWEVER, unless you've done something wrong, or are acting in a suspicious manner (deliberately avoiding police, looking over your shoulder after police have passed, etc), an officer CANNOT hold you.

I can go up to someone on the street and say "Hey man, can I talk to you?" and if I have no articulable reasonable suspicion about the person, they can tell me "No," and walk on, and I've got nothing to hold them on.

That whole 4th Amendment thing, you know?

May 16, 2010#33

Krisken

And the "Reasonable Suspicion" thing is what I find troubling. Cell phones, pagers, McDonalds wrappers, and an Atlas has all been used, successfully, to support "reasonable suspicion". Saying no to the officer can be construed suspicious behavior.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about reasonable suspicion being abused.

May 16, 2010#34

Dusty668

Krisken said:
And the "Reasonable Suspicion" thing is what I find troubling. Cell phones, pagers, McDonalds wrappers, and an Atlas has all been used...

Sir, I need to discuss that Atlas with you....

:laugh:

May 16, 2010#35

Hailey Knight

Officer_Charon said:
A lawful contact CAN mean just coming up to someone on the street and talking to them. HOWEVER, unless you've done something wrong, or are acting in a suspicious manner (deliberately avoiding police, looking over your shoulder after police have passed, etc), an officer CANNOT hold you.

I can go up to someone on the street and say "Hey man, can I talk to you?" and if I have no articulable reasonable suspicion about the person, they can tell me "No," and walk on, and I've got nothing to hold them on.

That whole 4th Amendment thing, you know?

May 16, 2010#36

ElJuski

escushion;386253][QUOTE=Officer_Charon said:
A lawful contact CAN mean just coming up to someone on the street and talking to them. HOWEVER, unless you've done something wrong, or are acting in a suspicious manner (deliberately avoiding police, looking over your shoulder after police have passed, etc), an officer CANNOT hold you.

I can go up to someone on the street and say "Hey man, can I talk to you?" and if I have no articulable reasonable suspicion about the person, they can tell me "No," and walk on, and I've got nothing to hold them on.

That whole 4th Amendment thing, you know?

May 16, 2010#37

@Li3n

Officer_Charon said:
A lawful contact CAN mean just coming up to someone on the street and talking to them. HOWEVER, unless you've done something wrong, or are acting in a suspicious manner (deliberately avoiding police, looking over your shoulder after police have passed, etc), an officer CANNOT hold you.

And what exactly would be reasonable suspicion for being an immigrant?!

May 16, 2010#38

rabbitgod

Jigglymuff;386267][QUOTE=escushion;386253][QUOTE=Officer_Charon said:
A lawful contact CAN mean just coming up to someone on the street and talking to them. HOWEVER, unless you've done something wrong, or are acting in a suspicious manner (deliberately avoiding police, looking over your shoulder after police have passed, etc), an officer CANNOT hold you.

I can go up to someone on the street and say "Hey man, can I talk to you?" and if I have no articulable reasonable suspicion about the person, they can tell me "No," and walk on, and I've got nothing to hold them on.

That whole 4th Amendment thing, you know?

Wasn't there a big deal about some sheriff in an AZ town rounding up whole Hispanic households on immigration suspicions? Can't recall his name, but the point is, this has already been abused before the law was even written--they just legalized what was already happening. Maybe AZ cares less about the cost than GA.[/QUOTE]

Right, which is exactly the point that I care about.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's Arpaio. And it's Phoenix, the fifth largest city in the country. There's all kinds of things wrong with this law. At best it's financially wasteful, at worst it's going to legalize this behavior.

May 16, 2010#39

AshburnerX

Arpaio is a glorified gangster. His war against illegal immigration is sadistic and unlawful, but that's not the worst of it... he also uses his power as sheriff to intimidate, threaten, and otherwise harass anyone who tries to run against him in elections. This is on top of the numerous deaths that have happened under his watch (the county has payed something like $43 million in damages tot he families of the dead).

May 19, 2010#40

Chibibar

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Power-Play-Over-Immigration-Law-94251079.html

I decide to attach to this instead of making a new thread.

It seems that Arizona hold's 25% of power to LA...... now it is truly a power play.
It could produce some shocking experience. Of course, there might not be much ground for Arizona to stand on if they are going to break contracts.

May 19, 2010#41

Covar

They should do it. After all if LA wants to boycott Arizona why not help them along.

May 19, 2010#42

SpecialKO

Covar said:
They should do it. After all if LA wants to boycott Arizona why not help them along.

I have to agree. What's the point of a boycott if you're only going to boycott some of it?

May 26, 2010#43

Krisken

Aaaannnd it begins. This wasn't even in Arizona, but Chicago, Illinois.

Eduardo Caraballo, a U.S. citizen born in the United States, was detained for over three days on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.
Despite presenting identifying documents and even his birth certificate, Caraballo was held by federal immigration authorities over the weekend and threatened with deportation, according to an NBC Chicago report.

May 26, 2010#44

Chibibar

Krisken said:
Aaaannnd it begins. This wasn't even in Arizona, but Chicago, Illinois.

Eduardo Caraballo, a U.S. citizen born in the United States, was detained for over three days on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.
Despite presenting identifying documents and even his birth certificate, Caraballo was held by federal immigration authorities over the weekend and threatened with deportation, according to an NBC Chicago report.

May 26, 2010#45

Covar

Chibibar;390139][QUOTE=Krisken said:
Aaaannnd it begins. This wasn't even in Arizona, but Chicago, Illinois.

Eduardo Caraballo, a U.S. citizen born in the United States, was detained for over three days on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.
Despite presenting identifying documents and even his birth certificate, Caraballo was held by federal immigration authorities over the weekend and threatened with deportation, according to an NBC Chicago report.

May 26, 2010#46

Chibibar

Covar;390144][QUOTE=Chibibar;390139][QUOTE=Krisken said:
Aaaannnd it begins. This wasn't even in Arizona, but Chicago, Illinois.

Eduardo Caraballo, a U.S. citizen born in the United States, was detained for over three days on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.
Despite presenting identifying documents and even his birth certificate, Caraballo was held by federal immigration authorities over the weekend and threatened with deportation, according to an NBC Chicago report.

Yea one of my little sister posted this.

These are FEDERAL agent trained for this specific thing and they botch it. EVEN with ID present and Birth Certificate......... I don't think the state would do any better (not saying that state police are stupid, I'm just saying this kind of thing can happen on all level and just have the ability to assume you are illegal and lock you up even with papers?)[/QUOTE]

Fuck it, just open the borders and let everyone in. After all a single incident in Chicago is a clear representation of what is going to happen with every single Hispanic citizen in Arizona.[/QUOTE]

No. You sure take it to the next level don't ya?

The thing is that it is possible to open to abuse. He SHOW his ID (legal one) and they (the agents) dismiss it and not even check it if it was real and assume it was FAKE. It took a congressman to get his release?

This kind of mistake can happen anywhere else if this kind of mentality are in place.

Now if the scenario was this. The guy was pick up, set of bail, paid bail, thought he was an illegal, produce proof that he was not and let go. Then there wouldn't be a story and I'll be fine with it.
When the system is abuse like this, then I have a problem with it.

I just want to make clear. The LAW in AZ I have no problem with it except ONE portion of it. The officer can have reasonable suspicion of illegal immigrant and take you in. That is it. At least other state put into writing that they have to do OTHER stuff first (i.e. can't just pull them over cause your are Asian) but AZ law doesn't have that. That is my beef.

Edit: some pronoun changes

May 26, 2010#47

Krisken

Covar, this is why I have you on ignore. You really need to tone down the hyperbole, just a hair.

May 26, 2010#48

Troll

Covar;390144][QUOTE=Chibibar;390139][QUOTE=Krisken said:
Aaaannnd it begins. This wasn't even in Arizona, but Chicago, Illinois.

Eduardo Caraballo, a U.S. citizen born in the United States, was detained for over three days on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.
Despite presenting identifying documents and even his birth certificate, Caraballo was held by federal immigration authorities over the weekend and threatened with deportation, according to an NBC Chicago report.

May 26, 2010#49

Chazwozel

Covar;390144][QUOTE=Chibibar;390139][QUOTE=Krisken said:
Aaaannnd it begins. This wasn't even in Arizona, but Chicago, Illinois.

Eduardo Caraballo, a U.S. citizen born in the United States, was detained for over three days on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.
Despite presenting identifying documents and even his birth certificate, Caraballo was held by federal immigration authorities over the weekend and threatened with deportation, according to an NBC Chicago report.

May 26, 2010#50

Soliloquy

Yup. Had a feeling something like this would happen.

I have no problem with exercising the law and doing something about the illegal immigration issue. Heck, sometimes I can only shake my head at much of the opposition: I covered a town hall forum about the economics of illegal immigration, and a bunch of crowd members got up in an uproar when the keynote speaker -- an expert on economics -- used the term "illegal immigrants" instead of "undocumented workers," and constantly called for the guy to sit down and let the next speaker -- a member of a the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada -- speak, despite the fact that the expert was the keynote speaker that was advertised in all the forum's announcements and press releases. What's more, the Progressive Leadership speaker strongly alleged that the expert's group, the Center for Immigration Studies, had ties to white supremacy, despite the fact that the group's leader is Hispanic.

(People on the other side were just as bad, though: trying to shout down the Progressive Leadership speaker when he was citing studies that downplayed the effects of immigration that the expert was talking about. Honestly, I just left the forum with the feeling that we're all doomed to never solve the issue.)

But despite all this, when a law starts putting U.S. citizens in danger of something like this simply because of his race (and I can't think of any other reason that this man was detained), it needs to be adjusted or abolished. Simple as that.

May 26, 2010#51

Chibibar

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100526/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_immigration_holder

The Attorney General Holder is worry that it will increase crime rather than lower with AZ new law. I am glad that someone outside of the forum and in government is saying it COULD lead to racial profiling.

Note: Again, if the letter of the law remove the "reasonable suspicion" (racial profiling) out of the law, then it wouldn't be a problem. I have no issue if a person is arrest for a crime (or suspicion of a crime) and THEN ask to verify legal status, then it is cool with me. And hopefully, a system is in place to able to verify the validity of document produce to claim legal status and avoid the whole Chicago incident where the federal officer assume the documents were fake.

May 26, 2010#52

SpecialKO

Chibibar said:
I have no issue if a person is arrest for a crime (or suspicion of a crime) and THEN ask to verify legal status, then it is cool with me.

This was doable before the AZ law.

May 26, 2010#53

Chibibar

TeKeo;390451][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
I have no issue if a person is arrest for a crime (or suspicion of a crime) and THEN ask to verify legal status, then it is cool with me.

This was doable before the AZ law.[/QUOTE]

Yea, and I didn't have an issue that local law enforcement has that ability, discover the illegal immigrant and send them to federal facility for deportation. As I keep saying, the main thing is that AZ law by pass the "crime part" and goes straight to "if you look like an illegal immigrant we have the right to jail you part" not even turn them over to Federal hands?

oh I forgot, the law does state that the person can show proof of legal status BUT now (Chicago's example) that even some law enforcement won't even accept that thinking it was fake while the guy was legal the whole time.

This is what I worry about. A legal U.S. citizen being harass.

Now of course what about we just make a whole blanket that set up check point and check EVERYONE papers regardless of race (White, Black, Asian, Hispanics you name it) like back in old Germany days...... I bet the same people who support the AZ law would go up and arms if they have to show papers at Grocery stores, theaters, banks, etc etc (you would want to set up where people WOULD go like Laundromats, 7-11, fast food joints. etc etc) Of course that is a bit extreme IMO but it has happen before in other country and look how that turn out.

edit: I guess the only way to have correct "reasonable suspicion" of illegal immigrant would be ESPer police. They can read minds and tell if a person is legal or not.

May 27, 2010#54

Jonzac

As a matter of fact, ICE has had an 800 number (hotline) for local law enforcement to call to check a person's immigration status if there is a question....and this has been around for years.

*heard this on radio but it makes sense*
ICE has only a few thousand agent...obviously they can't be everywhere, which is why they rely on local law enforcement to alert them of an "undocumented immigrants" they find...to then apply the FEDERAL LAW. The only real difference is that the AZ law declares an undocumented immigerent to now be in violation of a STATE law as well as a FEDERAL law which gives the state's more options in dealing with it.

as for racial profiling...PLEASE we all do it...I get "racial profiled" everytime I leave work and head to the Anacostia Metro station where I am one of three white guys in the whole place. Think I don't see the looks? We all do it, nothing will every stop it....if...and I mean IF local law enforcement started to ABUSE citizens don't you think that would come out in today's electronic world?

May 27, 2010#55

Chibibar

Jonzac said:
As a matter of fact, ICE has had an 800 number (hotline) for local law enforcement to call to check a person's immigration status if there is a question....and this has been around for years.

*heard this on radio but it makes sense*
ICE has only a few thousand agent...obviously they can't be everywhere, which is why they rely on local law enforcement to alert them of an "undocumented immigrants" they find...to then apply the FEDERAL LAW. The only real difference is that the AZ law declares an undocumented immigerent to now be in violation of a STATE law as well as a FEDERAL law which gives the state's more options in dealing with it.

as for racial profiling...PLEASE we all do it...I get "racial profiled" everytime I leave work and head to the Anacostia Metro station where I am one of three white guys in the whole place. Think I don't see the looks? We all do it, nothing will every stop it....if...and I mean IF local law enforcement started to ABUSE citizens don't you think that would come out in today's electronic world?

Oh I'm not saying that people don't racial profile. It is part of our experience and upbringing. BUT the moment we ACT upon it then people have problem. i.e. If I happen to hate Japanese and keep it to myself, then all is good, but if I was some government elect and decides to "ban" all business with the Japanese, that is a different story.

I think in private sector (while it is bad) the public sector (like government entities) can't get away as much. You see brutality and such more often in the net now (at least faster)

May 31, 2010#56

@Li3n

Jonzac said:
as for racial profiling...PLEASE we all do it...I get "racial profiled" everytime I leave work and head to the Anacostia Metro station where I am one of three white guys in the whole place. Think I don't see the looks? We all do it, nothing will every stop it....if...and I mean IF local law enforcement started to ABUSE citizens don't you think that would come out in today's electronic world?

And that's why it's a bad idea to legally allow it...

and I mean IF local law enforcement started to ABUSE citizens don't you think that would come out in today's electronic world?

Does Joe Arpaio still have a job...

May 31, 2010#57

Chibibar

also remember that the AZ law is not in effect YET so that is why we haven't heard in the electronic world. Of course, we could be all wrong and nothing bad will happen in AZ.

Jun 2, 2010#58

SpecialKO

Chibibar said:
also remember that the AZ law is not in effect YET so that is why we haven't heard in the electronic world. Of course, we could be all wrong and nothing bad will happen in AZ.

@Li3n said:
Does Joe Arpaio still have a job...

Jun 11, 2010#59

Jonzac

@Li3n;392028][QUOTE=Jonzac said:
as for racial profiling...PLEASE we all do it...I get "racial profiled" everytime I leave work and head to the Anacostia Metro station where I am one of three white guys in the whole place. Think I don't see the looks? We all do it, nothing will every stop it....if...and I mean IF local law enforcement started to ABUSE citizens don't you think that would come out in today's electronic world?

And that's why it's a bad idea to legally allow it...

and I mean IF local law enforcement started to ABUSE citizens don't you think that would come out in today's electronic world?

Does Joe Arpaio still have a job...[/QUOTE]

Yes, because the people of his county like the myriad of thing he does. Hence the democratic system in action. He does a lot more than "racially profiling" people. I personally think he's an ass, but I do like the way he DOES NOT coddle convicts....so ya, he still has a job thanks to the people he protects.

Jul 28, 2010#60

Troll

The majority of Americans may have supported the law, but it's the judge's opinion who matters most. And they judge said "Yeah, not so much with checking everyone's immigration status."

PHOENIX – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.

Whining and sniveling from Fox News about "activist judges" in 3... 2... 1...

WARNING: Do not read comments if you value your sanity. Last I check, the morlocks in the comments section were advocating a violent overthrow of the government and talking about how liberals are traitors who should be lynched. Seriously.

Jul 28, 2010#61

Covar

Judge cherry-picking laws is pretty damn activist.

Jul 28, 2010#62

Dave

Covar said:
Judge cherry-picking laws is pretty damn activist.

Like they did when they struck down the laws against black people in the 50s. The majority of Americans were for those laws, too. Fucking activist judges.

Jul 28, 2010#63

Troll

Don't. Just don't. The term "activist judge" is pathetic. It's what conservatives say when a judge does something they don't like. Nothing more. It's not improper, it's not over stepping authority, it's just a stupid name people use when a judge smacks some sense into a law/government.

Jul 28, 2010#64

Covar

Sorry, overturn the entire law or let it stand. Cherry-picking what you disagree with is the same as line-item vetoes.

Jul 28, 2010#65

GasBandit

Dave;420868][QUOTE=Covar said:
Judge cherry-picking laws is pretty damn activist.

Like they did when they struck down the laws against black people in the 50s. The majority of Americans were for those laws, too. Fucking activist judges.[/QUOTE]

Every single instance of a Judge going against the will of the people is not the civil rights movement all over again. When it happens with the alarming regularity that it does in contemporary society, it ceases being crusading progressivism and starts being routine antidemocracy.

The argument of the federal government also falls flat on its face when it:
1) claims not to have the resources to properly enforce federal immigration law. "But the boooooorder... It's sooooooooo big! :cry:

"
2) SUES a state agency which enforces a state law that EXACTLY MIRRORS federal law, and
3) does NOT sue so-called "sanctuary cities" which deliberately and publically act IN VIOLATION of federal law.

I'm of the opinion that Arizona should just do what they want to do anyway, since the Federal government apparently "doesn't have the resources" to do much about it. After all, Oklahoma decided to start putting the 10 commandments back outside their courtrooms, for good or ill... and the feds have yet to go out there and rip them out.

Jul 28, 2010#66

Krisken

Yeah, they should raise taxes so they can enforce the laws.

Jul 28, 2010#67

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Yeah, they should raise taxes so they can enforce the laws.

It's not the income that's the problem.... it's the outlay.

Jul 28, 2010#68

Krisken

I can do that too!

Really, we spend a crap load on defense. I'm ok with helping people. It's the killing people I'm not big on.

Jul 28, 2010#69

GasBandit

Jul 28, 2010#70

sixpackshaker

Chazwozel said:
It was the Federal fucking government that fucked that up. Can you imagine what Bumfuck, Arizona sheriffs are going to think they can do to brown people which they didn't identify as brown but did anyway?

Can you imagine that some Sheriff of Bumfuck, Arizona has seen a few more Hispanics than some college fool with a new shiny badge?

---------- Post added at 07:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

OOOOO, look at a bunch of pretty lines and colors.

Jul 28, 2010#71

AshburnerX

My view on the Gas and Krisken Graph Measuring Contest:

Jul 28, 2010#72

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
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:

Jul 28, 2010#73

Krisken

My response:

Jul 28, 2010#74

SpecialKO

Ash just raised the level of awesome in this thread to 11. :thumb:

Jul 29, 2010#75

Bubble181

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).
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.
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.
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.

Jul 29, 2010#76

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
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.

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.

Jul 29, 2010#77

Troll

Bubble181 said:
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).

We have official ID cards, though they are issued by states rather than the federal government.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Jul 29, 2010#78

Chibibar

National ID card would be a good thing. Maybe SS card with a picture on it (since it is national

just combine it)

If the police pull over an NON-Hispanic person and automatically ask for citizenship paper, then I'll be cool with it, but the AZ law is basically targeting illegal Hispanic (Mexico origin to be exact) at least it can open up to abuse, now if it has become standard that a police pull over anyone and ask for insurance, registration and citizenship paper, then why not?

If you forgot your paper, you go to jail (in this case it happen already if you can't prove you are a citizen with the new AZ law) Will the Legal citizen can sue for wrongful imprisonment? also will such law will actually be passed if such a thing were to happen? I notice that people who are FOR AZ laws are usually non-Hispanics. (predominantly white, but I don't see many Asian in the protest. I can't say for other Ethics)

but we all know we don't live anywhere near a perfect world that is not likely going to happen and racial profiling WILL happen.

Edit: Blah! stupid autospell check and a broken brain

Jul 29, 2010#79

GasBandit

I'm having a really hard time decoding all that.

Jul 29, 2010#80

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
I'm having a really hard time decoding all that.

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 sense

Jul 30, 2010#81

JONJONAUG

So hey, some of the bill got put on hold by a federal judge for being unconstitutional.

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.

Aug 2, 2010#82

Bubble181

Troll said:
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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?
If your cops are using this kind of thing for serious harassment - fire them and get better cops. If you don't trust any sort of cop with the authority to check that you're following the law - well, go to Ethiopia or something, and see how well things work there.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Why is it that the US is at the same time, the country with the strictest security requirements and demands (metal detectors in public places, searches,...) and the country where peopel seem to take the weirdest things as against their rights?

Aug 2, 2010#83

Troll

The US and Belgium are different. We like our way, you can have your way. I don't think "But we do it differently in Belgium" is a valid argument for or against the law in AZ. If an American complained about a Belgian law, and the only argument was "Well here in 'Merica we do things differently/better..." it would be a non-stop bitchfest about arrogant Americans telling the world how to think.

Aug 2, 2010#84

Bubble181

*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.

Aug 2, 2010#85

Troll

Yeah, you were trying to say your way was better. But if you want to play innocent now, that's fine. I've learned to ignore you from this point on.

Aug 2, 2010#86

Hailey Knight

People I've talked to from Belgium say they feel they have less rights than their country's criminals. I've known them longer than Bubble and heard them complain about it longer too, so I'm inclined to believe them over his flag-waving.

Aug 3, 2010#87

Seraphyn

So far, I got randomly pulled over (aka drove into a random checkpoint) twice. They signal/mark you well before they can even make out your face and if there is any pre meditated reason to do so it's because of the type of car you're driving. Being an European like Bubble here, I can understand his viewpoint on this just fine. If the choice to randomly pull people over is not made randomly, you've got yourself a cop that shouldn't be there.

The feeling of having less rights then a criminal seems to stem from severe lack of knowledge of ones rights (I can't really blame anyone for it though, I don't know them all either). The second you get booked you get a lawyer and he/she will make sure you understand and exercise all your rights, thus giving anyone the feeling like the suspected criminal having more rights. In reality we all have (or at least should have) equal rights, the second I get picked up for something I will go through the same thing as the guy I read/heard about in the news.

The only thing that always bothers me with criminality in the news is that the criminal gets his/her name and face protected here (in the more official/respected news outlets anyway), while the victim is put out there for all to see. If anything, the victim needs more protecting.

/offtopic

Aug 3, 2010#88

Chibibar

Bubble181 said:
*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 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

I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong.

Aug 3, 2010#89

Necronic

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.

Aug 3, 2010#90

Chibibar

Necronic said:
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.

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.

Aug 3, 2010#91

GasBandit

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?

Aug 3, 2010#92

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
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! ^_~

Aug 3, 2010#93

GasBandit

Chibibar;423252][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
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]

Yellow's just brown that's been run through the washer on "heavy" too many times.

Aug 3, 2010#94

Chibibar

GasBandit;423258][QUOTE=Chibibar;423252][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
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

Aug 3, 2010#95

GasBandit

Chibibar;423261][QUOTE=GasBandit;423258][QUOTE=Chibibar;423252][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
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

Aug 3, 2010#96

SpecialKO

GasBandit;423315][QUOTE=Chibibar;423261][QUOTE=GasBandit;423258][QUOTE=Chibibar;423252][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
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]

Yellow's just brown that's been run through the washer on "heavy" too many times.[/QUOTE]

LOL.. I love it! that is pretty funny (yes. I'm Asian and I still think that is funny)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I only say that to asian people. White people have a 50% incident rate of gasping in horror. Asians think it's hilarious usually.[/QUOTE]

I didn't, but I'm only half-Asian myself. Assuming that the other 50% of white people found the joke funny, and 100% of Asians, you had a 75% chance of being thought funny, so I guess the odds were just against you today.

Aug 3, 2010#97

LordRendar

Well,as a European I can understandBubbles point of view,but as a Hamburger(city,not the food) I can also understand AZ laws.We have a huge population of immigrants here,of various flavors of "im not gonna integrate into your society,but i want to have all the rights and benefits that your country has to offer". As an Immigrant myself this pisses me off to no end.If you are gonna act like a guest then do so, but guests leave.If you want to live under my roof,you gotta ply by my rules.Im not asking you to become 100% german,or to give up your traditions,heck,show em off for all I care.Adds a little flavor to the community.But the mentality that many of the immigrant communities have is "Bah,Germans suck ass. Im proud to be a Turk/polish/Yugo/Cosovoist/etc,their rules are shitty so im gonna live by my own and damn of you people dont conform to this." But if they do somethign wrong they cry "Please,i wannt to be judged by you shitty german laws." and once they get called on their BS they scream "Foul! Nazis! just because im a minority! This is racial profiling.Just as expected of you germans."

Sorry...I always get into rant mode when immigration and integrations are the topic of debate. But yeah,I can see where the people of AZ are coming from.I dont really condone it,but I can understand.

Aug 3, 2010#98

Chibibar

personally, I think it is best if we do the following.

1. Everyone get ID card. Technically we already have this. A person get a driver's license (state ID) or can get a state ID for those who don't drive. There is no age limit for State ID that I know of. When people enter the country, they get an ID card (work ID, Greencard, student ID etc etc these are valid ID card) Heck, I would be ok with Federal level ID card (we do have that call Passport

) that way it is uniform. I have friends from many states and all of the state ID don't even look alike. There are some basic info, but not at the same place and such and can be faked.
2. ID Card (i.e. registered) gets benefit. So you don't have a card, you get deported (this has to be done on Federal level cause it will cause many confusion since each state will probably handle things differently and have different rules)

Of course this will change A LOT of things in the country
1. You can't get help if you don't have ID card (i.e. no hospital, no benefits, no unemployment, and no employment since that would be against the law)
2. Everyone carry ID card at all time
3. Some people don't like carry the ID card at all time. This can cause some problem initially. What can state do? what if you don't have your ID card on you, do you get fined? sent to jail? I know that hospitals in the U.S. don't usually turn anyone away when they really need help (emergency) but that is part of the problem. Of course it would seem cruel if you got into a wreak and left your wallet at home with your ID card

This of course will need to be a sweeping change. Sure it sounds cruel, but people can't have "best of both worlds"

Aug 4, 2010#99

Covar

Drivers licenses are not a good form of id when their neighbors in California will give one out to whoever walks into the DMV.

Forums