Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill
- Thread starter 62t
- Start date
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/duncan-hunter-immigration/
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/duncan-hunter-immigration/
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
It's cool, they're still not racists.
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='IRHari']And what do illegals look like?[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
Shrapnellistic
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 10 (100%)
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.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='Shrapnellistic'] I'm sure if you just speak English, when you're detained, they won't inquire about your citizenship.[/QUOTE]
Bull
ing shit.
Bull
ing shit.[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]
Is BigT right, or are we missing something?
Is BigT right, or are we missing something?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='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:[/QUOTE]
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.
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:[/QUOTE]
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.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='depascal22']Bull ing shit.[/QUOTE]
Outstandingly accurate. Pit bulls have a weaker grip than most cops have on detained suspects.
ing shit.[/QUOTE] Outstandingly accurate. Pit bulls have a weaker grip than most cops have on detained suspects.
Kirin Lemon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
Again, tell that to this guy:
http://guanabee.com/2010/04/american-truck-driver-illegal-alien-arizona-sb1070/
Again, tell that to this guy:
http://guanabee.com/2010/04/american-truck-driver-illegal-alien-arizona-sb1070/
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']Is BigT right, or are we missing something?[/QUOTE]
Link plzzzzzz
Link plzzzzzz
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Shrapnellistic']I have a sterotype for illegals, no English. Comprende.[/quote]
wat
wat
cool story bro
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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?
k
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?
k
[quote name='speedracer']Link plzzzzzz[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm asking for, really. Everyone's getting up in arms about this, yet no one really seems to know how this differs from existing federal law, aside from giving state/local authorities the ability to help enforce the law.
Quick search brings this up:
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/p...aw-different-from/1ZdAAkpg-U6oVELk47QVBw.cspx
That's what I'm asking for, really. Everyone's getting up in arms about this, yet no one really seems to know how this differs from existing federal law, aside from giving state/local authorities the ability to help enforce the law.
Quick search brings this up:
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/p...aw-different-from/1ZdAAkpg-U6oVELk47QVBw.cspx
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The fundamental difference is that you can be stopped and arrested under suspicion of being an alien with no additional probable cause. We've already discussed that in this thread with the text of the bill itself.
By the way who's going to enforce the part of the law that says 'police can't JUST racially profile?'
Like I said, the actual enforcement of this bill will become the problem, regardless of how innocuous you people think the text of the bill is.
Like I said, the actual enforcement of this bill will become the problem, regardless of how innocuous you people think the text of the bill is.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The law doesn't say they can't racially profile.
it says they can't use it all by itself.
it says they can't use it all by itself.
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']The fundamental difference is that you can be stopped and arrested under suspicion of being an alien with no additional probable cause. We've already discussed that in this thread with the text of the bill itself.[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
The key phrase is "for any lawful contact."
#1 You must have lawful contact between the police and and another person. For example, a traffic stop or a criminal activity. There is no place in the law where it says that a person can be stopped solely on reasonable suspicion that he or she is illegal. If that happens, your complaint should be with the police officers and not the law itself.
#2 Once criterion #1 is met, then if there is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien the police have a duty to ask for proof of citizenship (the bar is pretty low as an AZ Driver's License will suffice) and perhaps investigate further.
In either case, I'm sure this will be challenged and tried in the courts and we'll see what happens there.
I disagree.
The key phrase is "for any lawful contact."
#1 You must have lawful contact between the police and and another person. For example, a traffic stop or a criminal activity. There is no place in the law where it says that a person can be stopped solely on reasonable suspicion that he or she is illegal. If that happens, your complaint should be with the police officers and not the law itself.
#2 Once criterion #1 is met, then if there is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien the police have a duty to ask for proof of citizenship (the bar is pretty low as an AZ Driver's License will suffice) and perhaps investigate further.
In either case, I'm sure this will be challenged and tried in the courts and we'll see what happens there.
[quote name='mykevermin']The fundamental difference is that you can be stopped and arrested under suspicion of being an alien with no additional probable cause. We've already discussed that in this thread with the text of the bill itself.[/QUOTE]
That's the only major difference between this bill and federal law (aside from who's doing the enforcing)? Some legal loophole that may or may not get abused.
That's the only major difference between this bill and federal law (aside from who's doing the enforcing)? Some legal loophole that may or may not get abused.
JolietJake
Banned
Police have never wrongfully stopped someone for a traffic violation.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
BigT, "lawful contact" can mean any interaction with the police.
Stop reading Byron York, because he's not a good source of information for interpreting the law.
[quote name='UncleBob']That's the only major difference between this bill and federal law (aside from who's doing the enforcing)? Some legal loophole that may or may not get abused.[/QUOTE]
What kind of rationale is this of yours? You, small government guy? You, freedom guy? A law that allows you, standing in the United States of America, to be arrested by a police officer because he doesn't like the cut of your jib, and you don't happen to be carrying the proper papers.
Moreover, this policy of detain first and identify later is already the de facto practice in parts of the state. It's this very policy that's resulted in Obama pulling funding from Maricopa County because big-time politician Sheriff Joe Arpaio spent money ignoring crime and arresting Arizonans under suspicion of being illegal immigrants - wasting government funding, allowing the local crime rate to increase, and instigating many many civil lawsuits against himself and the county.
It's been abused in the state for YEARS. It's just being made legal now.
EDIT: You, or all people, minimizing this, when you were the guy flipping your shit over the government wanting to know how many shitters you had? You're a moron or a troll, and it's time to come clean with which. You know if you're deliberately a troll or not - so like the ugly kid in the group, if you don't know who it is - it's you.
Stop reading Byron York, because he's not a good source of information for interpreting the law.
[quote name='UncleBob']That's the only major difference between this bill and federal law (aside from who's doing the enforcing)? Some legal loophole that may or may not get abused.[/QUOTE]
What kind of rationale is this of yours? You, small government guy? You, freedom guy? A law that allows you, standing in the United States of America, to be arrested by a police officer because he doesn't like the cut of your jib, and you don't happen to be carrying the proper papers.
Moreover, this policy of detain first and identify later is already the de facto practice in parts of the state. It's this very policy that's resulted in Obama pulling funding from Maricopa County because big-time politician Sheriff Joe Arpaio spent money ignoring crime and arresting Arizonans under suspicion of being illegal immigrants - wasting government funding, allowing the local crime rate to increase, and instigating many many civil lawsuits against himself and the county.
It's been abused in the state for YEARS. It's just being made legal now.
EDIT: You, or all people, minimizing this, when you were the guy flipping your shit over the government wanting to know how many shitters you had? You're a moron or a troll, and it's time to come clean with which. You know if you're deliberately a troll or not - so like the ugly kid in the group, if you don't know who it is - it's you.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
A loophole is an unintended consequence.
This is not unintended. Not in the slightest.
This is not unintended. Not in the slightest.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I don't know why I need further evidence beyond the text of the law itself.
It clearly spells things out, unless you're too dense to read and understand the text of the law.
The expanded powers and obligations it gives officers are clear as day.
But if you want something with fewer syllables to chew over:
There's video of her answering the question this way - last Friday, when she not only signed the bill into law, but made a big press conference about it. Detaining people under suspicion and holding them until they can verify their status is a part of this law.
Then again, you're the one who refuses to acknowledge photographic evidence of whatever-it-was that you got shown up on a few weeks back (hard to track things that happen more frequently than even daily meals, you know).
You'll, I'm sure, continue to deny the empirical world around you - not because you're a good skeptic, but because you're just a pestering asshole who wants to pretend you're invested in the socratic method of discovery. Instead, you're a grown man whose debate style is a mildly more evolved version of a 5-year olds' perpetual inquisitive "but why?"
Go read 1070. It's like 10 pages, it ain't hard. I figured you were the kind of cat who could devour these things, given the stink you made over the length of the health care legislation. This bill ain't private, and you know the english language. the only thing getting in the way of your clarity is your own laziness. there is no burden on me - I've made my case. on my own, having read the bill and understood the bill on my own. i don't have byron york or tucker carlson to help me curse govenrment power and oversight early in the morning under Obama, and spend my afternoons defending a "show me your papers" method of policing in the state of Arizona.
I did it all on my own I'm so proud!
Quit demanding to be spoonfed, Bob. You'reing stuffed already.
It clearly spells things out, unless you're too dense to read and understand the text of the law.
The expanded powers and obligations it gives officers are clear as day.
But if you want something with fewer syllables to chew over:
There's video of her answering the question this way - last Friday, when she not only signed the bill into law, but made a big press conference about it. Detaining people under suspicion and holding them until they can verify their status is a part of this law.
Then again, you're the one who refuses to acknowledge photographic evidence of whatever-it-was that you got shown up on a few weeks back (hard to track things that happen more frequently than even daily meals, you know).
You'll, I'm sure, continue to deny the empirical world around you - not because you're a good skeptic, but because you're just a pestering asshole who wants to pretend you're invested in the socratic method of discovery. Instead, you're a grown man whose debate style is a mildly more evolved version of a 5-year olds' perpetual inquisitive "but why?"
Go read 1070. It's like 10 pages, it ain't hard. I figured you were the kind of cat who could devour these things, given the stink you made over the length of the health care legislation. This bill ain't private, and you know the english language. the only thing getting in the way of your clarity is your own laziness. there is no burden on me - I've made my case. on my own, having read the bill and understood the bill on my own. i don't have byron york or tucker carlson to help me curse govenrment power and oversight early in the morning under Obama, and spend my afternoons defending a "show me your papers" method of policing in the state of Arizona.
I did it all on my own I'm so proud!
Quit demanding to be spoonfed, Bob. You're
ing stuffed already.[quote name='mykevermin']
[/QUOTE]
*sigh*
My favorite part of this is that Myke appears to be most concerned with this bill because he believes government officials might abuse or misuse the power it gives them based on nothing more than the history of governmental abuse.
Don't get me wrong, fellow readers - I completely and 100% agree with his concerns. In fact, it's the same argument I've made time and time again that Myke seems to always shoot down because he happens to agree with the new powers the government is trying to grab.
Like, it's perfectly wonderful if the government wants to completely take over health care and start fining/jailing people for not purchasing a service from a private company, but all hell breaks loose when the government starts enforcing laws that already exist?
Good times.
*sigh*
My favorite part of this is that Myke appears to be most concerned with this bill because he believes government officials might abuse or misuse the power it gives them based on nothing more than the history of governmental abuse.
Don't get me wrong, fellow readers - I completely and 100% agree with his concerns. In fact, it's the same argument I've made time and time again that Myke seems to always shoot down because he happens to agree with the new powers the government is trying to grab.
Like, it's perfectly wonderful if the government wants to completely take over health care and start fining/jailing people for not purchasing a service from a private company, but all hell breaks loose when the government starts enforcing laws that already exist?
Good times.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']BigT, "lawful contact" can mean any interaction with the police.
Stop reading Byron York, because he's not a good source of information for interpreting the law.
[/QUOTE]
I honestly have no idea who Byron York is - I'd have to check Wikipedia. I mainly listen to KFI 640 http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/podcasting/ whenever I have a chance to get info on this subject.
My source is Kris Kobach, on of the writers of the legislation. He did interviews on NPR and some other radio stations over the last couple days:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126390888
Stop reading Byron York, because he's not a good source of information for interpreting the law.
[/QUOTE]
I honestly have no idea who Byron York is - I'd have to check Wikipedia. I mainly listen to KFI 640 http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/podcasting/ whenever I have a chance to get info on this subject.
My source is Kris Kobach, on of the writers of the legislation. He did interviews on NPR and some other radio stations over the last couple days:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126390888
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Do they have ever random checkpoints for DWI/DUI in Arizona?
I know I've been stopped by local and state police just because I was driving along a road at a certain time of the evening on a certain day.
Has anybody posted this?
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3104.asp
EDIT: The crazy peoples' point of view.
http://www.rense.com/general90/factsheet.htm
Keyword in the article is Maricopa.
I know I've been stopped by local and state police just because I was driving along a road at a certain time of the evening on a certain day.
Has anybody posted this?
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3104.asp
EDIT: The crazy peoples' point of view.
http://www.rense.com/general90/factsheet.htm
Keyword in the article is Maricopa.
Last edited by a moderator:
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']*sigh*
My favorite part of this is that Myke appears to be most concerned with this bill because he believes government officials might abuse or misuse the power it gives them based on nothing more than the history of governmental abuse.
Don't get me wrong, fellow readers - I completely and 100% agree with his concerns. In fact, it's the same argument I've made time and time again that Myke seems to always shoot down because he happens to agree with the new powers the government is trying to grab.
Like, it's perfectly wonderful if the government wants to completely take over health care and start fining/jailing people for not purchasing a service from a private company, but all hell breaks loose when the government starts enforcing laws that already exist?
Good times.[/QUOTE]
that says it all
My favorite part of this is that Myke appears to be most concerned with this bill because he believes government officials might abuse or misuse the power it gives them based on nothing more than the history of governmental abuse.
Don't get me wrong, fellow readers - I completely and 100% agree with his concerns. In fact, it's the same argument I've made time and time again that Myke seems to always shoot down because he happens to agree with the new powers the government is trying to grab.
Like, it's perfectly wonderful if the government wants to completely take over health care and start fining/jailing people for not purchasing a service from a private company, but all hell breaks loose when the government starts enforcing laws that already exist?
Good times.[/QUOTE]
that says it all
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='BigT']My source is Kris Kobach, on of the writers of the legislation. He did interviews on NPR and some other radio stations over the last couple days:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126390888[/QUOTE]
Looking at the transcript of that interview, he's not listed as one of the authors of this particular law. Additionally, he misquotes and contradicts himself on the racial profiling issue:
1) He says "section two expressly prohibits racial profiling." and the very next sentence to come out of his mouth:
2) "you can't enforce this bill proceeding solely considering the race, color or national origin of a person"
Unless Kobach is using a particularly nuanced and absurd definition of racial profiling, these two sentences are inconsistent with each other.
Now, as for "lawful contact," Kobach is being deliberately misleading. He's trying to claim that it can only be enforced in the commission of another crime. Which isn't true - it's his own misreading of the law, but this time I think it's deliberate. Standing next to a police officer in a movie theater lobby is lawful contact. Being stopped at a red light next to a cruiser is lawful contact. Given Kobach's background, I have a very hard time believing that he's simply misunderstanding the language of the law at this point. The language of 1070 is very clear here, and Kobach is trying to argue that people won't be stopped in public places while not under commission of other crimes or suspicion of committing other crimes, and asked to provide documentation of their lawful presence in the country.
And if people aren't stopped in that manner, it will be due to police practice, because the language of the law allows it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126390888[/QUOTE]
Looking at the transcript of that interview, he's not listed as one of the authors of this particular law. Additionally, he misquotes and contradicts himself on the racial profiling issue:
1) He says "section two expressly prohibits racial profiling." and the very next sentence to come out of his mouth:
2) "you can't enforce this bill proceeding solely considering the race, color or national origin of a person"
Unless Kobach is using a particularly nuanced and absurd definition of racial profiling, these two sentences are inconsistent with each other.
Now, as for "lawful contact," Kobach is being deliberately misleading. He's trying to claim that it can only be enforced in the commission of another crime. Which isn't true - it's his own misreading of the law, but this time I think it's deliberate. Standing next to a police officer in a movie theater lobby is lawful contact. Being stopped at a red light next to a cruiser is lawful contact. Given Kobach's background, I have a very hard time believing that he's simply misunderstanding the language of the law at this point. The language of 1070 is very clear here, and Kobach is trying to argue that people won't be stopped in public places while not under commission of other crimes or suspicion of committing other crimes, and asked to provide documentation of their lawful presence in the country.
And if people aren't stopped in that manner, it will be due to police practice, because the language of the law allows it.
[quote name='UncleBob']Like, it's perfectly wonderful if the government wants to completely take over health care and start fining/jailing people for not purchasing a service from a private company, but all hell breaks loose when the government starts enforcing laws that already exist?[/QUOTE]
Whoa. Where did the bill say anything about jail?
Whoa. Where did the bill say anything about jail?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Imaginationland. Where all conservatives get 100% of their daily allowance of bullshit.
[quote name='IRHari']Whoa. Where did the bill say anything about jail?[/QUOTE]
We've been over this.
The Health Care Reform bill doesn't say anything about jail - it allows the IRS to fine individuals for not having health insurance.
Then, you get into tax law, where you can go to jail for not paying taxes/IRS penalties.
We've been over this.
The Health Care Reform bill doesn't say anything about jail - it allows the IRS to fine individuals for not having health insurance.
Then, you get into tax law, where you can go to jail for not paying taxes/IRS penalties.
JolietJake
Banned
How does one reconcile their desire to govern strictly by the constitution with their belief in the right's of states to govern themselves? I ask because immigration is regulated by the federal government if you go strictly by the constitution. Yet i know a lot of libertarian types believe states should have more power in governing themselves, while also being strict constitutionalists.
[quote name='JolietJake']How does one reconcile their desire to govern strictly by the constitution with their belief in the right's of states to govern themselves? I ask because immigration is regulated by the federal government if you go strictly by the constitution. Yet i know a lot of libertarian types believe states should have more power in governing themselves, while also being strict constitutionalists.[/QUOTE]
It's my understanding that the new Arizona bill doesn't redefine what qualifies someone as a legal immigrant. It's cut and paste from existing Federal Law. All this bill does is empower state and local officials to enforce the existing federal definition of what's illegal.
It's my understanding that the new Arizona bill doesn't redefine what qualifies someone as a legal immigrant. It's cut and paste from existing Federal Law. All this bill does is empower state and local officials to enforce the existing federal definition of what's illegal.
JolietJake
Banned
That's what i'm saying, i've read where some experts have said that states do not have the authority to enforce immigration law as the constitution makes it a federal matter. So how does one who believes in the constitution and the rights of states reconcile that divide?
Doesn't the federal government have sole power to regulate the drug market as well? Yet, local LEO's are given the power to enforce federal drug laws.
So long as a state isn't trying to individually redesign the process by which a immigrant gains proper and legal access to the country, then I, personally, don't have a problem with a situation where local/state LEOs are simply enforcing the laws already written.
So long as a state isn't trying to individually redesign the process by which a immigrant gains proper and legal access to the country, then I, personally, don't have a problem with a situation where local/state LEOs are simply enforcing the laws already written.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/30/kris-kobach-email/
UPDATE:Kobach’s email to Pearce is chilling. Knowing full well that the phrase “lawful contact” must go (a flip flop from the position he took yesterday in the New York Times) he recommends tweaking the law in a manner that would appear to allow profiling. Why else would he be interested in using property or rental codes to ferret out undocumented people? Is he aware of some credible study that shows unauthorized aliens from say Ireland or Canada, or some other country tend to put their cars on blocks and/or overcrowd apartments? Kris Kobach and Senator Pearce owe Arizonans and the nation an immediate explanation. Note: it appears the email was written by Kobach on Wednesday evening before his op-ed ran in the New York Times the next morning. The op-ed argued that the Arizona law as written was legal. If he was working on changing it why then did he let the New York Times piece run?
UPDATE:Kobach’s email to Pearce is chilling. Knowing full well that the phrase “lawful contact” must go (a flip flop from the position he took yesterday in the New York Times) he recommends tweaking the law in a manner that would appear to allow profiling. Why else would he be interested in using property or rental codes to ferret out undocumented people? Is he aware of some credible study that shows unauthorized aliens from say Ireland or Canada, or some other country tend to put their cars on blocks and/or overcrowd apartments? Kris Kobach and Senator Pearce owe Arizonans and the nation an immediate explanation. Note: it appears the email was written by Kobach on Wednesday evening before his op-ed ran in the New York Times the next morning. The op-ed argued that the Arizona law as written was legal. If he was working on changing it why then did he let the New York Times piece run?
DarkNessBear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Ugh *face palm*. What is this country?! They are here ILLEGALLY. It would be like me protesting someones property for not allowing me to trespass on it. "How dare you, I could be a resident! Dont ask me!". If you are here legally then don't worry about it, pass it.
This is one of the easiest countries to become a legal citizen.
This is one of the easiest countries to become a legal citizen.
bread's done