Originally Posted by IRHari Fixed for more accuracy.

I take it you haven't been to many other countries... in the majority of the world, there is a much bigger divide between the high and low classes than in the US... go to India and see how untouchables are treated... go to Mexico and see how many social programs poor countryside farmers are eligible for

Originally Posted by BigT This just states that they should help enforcing what is already on the books as federal law. I disagree with your interpretation. By the letter of the law The police must have a reason for stopping you, first. Stopping a person to check their immigration status solely would be akin to a tautology. Furthermore, the law specifically prohibits this: Look, I am all for immigration. Hell, I'm an immigrant myself. I feel bad for the people of Mexico - their country is a corrupt mess and the elites in Mexico do little to help the poor. If you want to see people who really hate poor Mexicans, just go to Mexico and meet their elites and see how they treat their poor! We cannot successfully mix unrestricted immigration with wide reaching social welfare programs... we have enough problems trying to support our own poor people and we'll go bankrupt by trying to support Mexico's poor people! A state should not be required to undertake such a burden. Thus, I agree with Arizona's right to pass such a law.

Our constitution also prohibits illegal searches and our laws prohibited illegal wire taps. You can see how well that has worked out in this country. Reason is what police use after they have you in handcuffs.

Originally Posted by BigT I take it you haven't been to many other countries... in the majority of the world, there is a much bigger divide between the high and low classes than in the US... go to India and see how untouchables are treated... go to Mexico and see how many social programs poor countryside farmers are eligible for

Been to both India and Jamaica, thanks. But just because the disparity there is much larger doesn't mean that America is exempt from criticism.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Aside from giving state and local officials the power and authority to enforce what is, essentially, a federal law - how does this Arkansas bill differ from existing federal laws regarding immigration?

I was reading something the other day that said it is one thing to live in a quasi-police state where you have to "show your papers", but we don't even really have "papers" in this country.

Not many people have a passport and almost no one carries around their birth certificate with them.

And now apparently Republicans are talking about deporting US Citizens :

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/...r-immigration/

And what do illegals look like?

It's cool, they're still not racists.

Originally Posted by IRHari And what do illegals look like?

At least 80% come from either Mexico or South America. They usually have moderately pigmented skin with black or brown hair indicating a higher than average melanin content. However, they may also appear Caucasian with European features. The vast majority speak Spanish predominantly. They tend to have a lower than average education level; about 50% have not completed high school. While living in the USA, they usually stratify to the lower socio-economic classes and work in low skill and low paying jobs. Overall, on the whole they appear to be a hard working people, but have difficulty breaking through to a higher socio-economic level - I believe this is predominantly because education is not highly valued in their communities and the state education system that their children are subjected to is lacking.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Aside from giving state and local officials the power and authority to enforce what is, essentially, a federal law - how does this Arkansas bill differ from existing federal laws regarding immigration?

It doesn't.

Originally Posted by BigT At least 80% come from either Mexico or South America. They usually have moderately pigmented skin with black or brown hair indicating a higher than average melanin content. However, they may also appear Caucasian with European features. The vast majority speak Spanish predominantly. They tend to have a lower than average education level; about 50% have not completed high school. While living in the USA, they usually stratify to the lower socio-economic classes and work in low skill and low paying jobs. Overall, on the whole they appear to be a hard working people, but have difficulty breaking through to a higher socio-economic level - I believe this is predominantly because education is not highly valued in their communities and the state education system that their children are subjected to is lacking.

It's a good thing every poor, undereducated Latino in the US is illegal. We might have a problem otherwise.

Hell, we're also lucky that the virtually all illegals in the US are poor, undereducated Latinos. Otherwise our profile might be both underinclusive and overinclusive! Whew.

Unless I'm missing the part where cops get a bonus per illegal or need to meet a quota, stop yelling fire when there's smoke. At most the old folks will flood police stations to report people that look like illegals to them. I'm sure if you just speak English, when you're detained, they won't inquire about your citizenship.

Originally Posted by Shrapnellistic I'm sure if you just speak English, when you're detained, they won't inquire about your citizenship.

Bull ing shit.

Originally Posted by BigT They tend to have a lower than average education level; about 50% have not completed high school.

You might be right on this. When AZ cops get that 'reasonable suspicion' they should ask them to take the derivative of x^2.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Aside from giving state and local officials the power and authority to enforce what is, essentially, a federal law - how does this Arkansas bill differ from existing federal laws regarding immigration?

Is BigT right, or are we missing something?

Originally Posted by BigT I disagree with your interpretation. By the letter of the law The police must have a reason for stopping you, first. Stopping a person to check their immigration status solely would be akin to a tautology. Furthermore, the law specifically prohibits this:

Not at all. The first clause you cite (which was the same one I cited, I believe) links "reasonable suspicion" (the presumption of criminal activity) to alien status. Being an illegal *is* the crime that triggers reasonable suspicion to detain and question a person. That's very clearly spelled out in the section you cited.

Some people against this law who've never read legal documents before see the words "reasonable suspicion" and freak out, thinking it's carte blanche for police to do whatever whenever. But the term, while vague in and of itself, has a very long use in criminal law and procedural law. The phrase by itself is not scary. But in linking it to the crime of being illegal - essentially a 'status' violation in that a person is perpetually guilty of the offense by virtue of merely existing where they do, police have to find new methods for defining "reasonable suspicion" - that necessarily involves racial/ethnic stereotyping.

This is, of course, despite your second clause. The only thing your second clause states is that race/ethnicity can not be the *ONLY* reason for detention/asking for papers. So as police you make something up - like all the arrested, charged, and convicted black persons who simply "fit the description," they'll pull over someone who is Latino, detain them, and claim they saw someone who "fit the description" running away from a lawnmower earlier in the day. They'll stop where large groups of Latinos are congregated, claiming they were day laborers looking for work. They'll find some other phony excuse to justify their racial stereotyping.

And let's be honest, the police must rely on racial stereotypes here to gauge immigrant status. "He was reading a book, so I thought he must not have been a US citizen" doesn't make much sense (insert snide joke about American intellectual acumen here). But the group of Latinos that appeared to be looking for day labor? That makes more sense - as it's grounded in the stereotype of how illegal immgrants (and illegal immigrants only) seek work. The policy must side with racial profiling - the clause you cite only says racial profiling can not be served up as an a la carte reason for detaining or arresting a person. But if you bundle racial profiling with another excuse, it's good, legal police work.

I don't think you really grasp how criminal law is worded, BigT.

Originally Posted by depascal22 Bull ing shit.

Outstandingly accurate. Pit bulls have a weaker grip than most cops have on detained suspects.

Originally Posted by Shrapnellistic Unless I'm missing the part where cops get a bonus per illegal or need to meet a quota, stop yelling fire when there's smoke. At most the old folks will flood police stations to report people that look like illegals to them. I'm sure if you just speak English, when you're detained, they won't inquire about your citizenship.

Again, tell that to this guy:

http://guanabee.com/2010/04/american...rizona-sb1070/

Originally Posted by UncleBob Is BigT right, or are we missing something?

Link plzzzzzz

Originally Posted by Shrapnellistic I have a sterotype for illegals, no English. Comprende.

wat

Grandmother immigrated from Germany, learned English from a dictionary and radio.

cool story bro

Originally Posted by BigT At least 80% come from either Mexico or South America. They usually have moderately pigmented skin with black or brown hair indicating a higher than average melanin content. However, they may also appear Caucasian with European features. The vast majority speak Spanish predominantly. They tend to have a lower than average education level; about 50% have not completed high school. While living in the USA, they usually stratify to the lower socio-economic classes and work in low skill and low paying jobs. Overall, on the whole they appear to be a hard working people, but have difficulty breaking through to a higher socio-economic level - I believe this is predominantly because education is not highly valued in their communities and the state education system that their children are subjected to is lacking.

Remove "or brown hair" and "The vast majority speak Spanish predominantly." and you're describing almost every Native American.

Now, where should we deport them to?