Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill


  • Please log in to reply
1189 replies to this topic

#151 Shrapnellistic

Shrapnellistic

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 05:17 AM

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.

Posted Image


#152 depascal22

depascal22

    Daddy Fat Sacks

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 07:11 AM

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


Bull fucking shit.

#153 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 April 2010 - 11:10 AM

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.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#154 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 April 2010 - 01:00 PM

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?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#155 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 01:28 PM

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.
Posted Image

#156 fatherofcaitlyn

fatherofcaitlyn

    Der Uber Hoarder

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:36 PM

Bull fucking shit.


:applause: Outstandingly accurate. Pit bulls have a weaker grip than most cops have on detained suspects.
Synergize, bitches!
Posted Image

#157 Kirin Lemon

Kirin Lemon

    世界を革命する者

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 03:14 PM

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/...arizona-sb1070/
Posted Image

#158 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 05:00 PM

Is BigT right, or are we missing something?

Link plzzzzzz
Posted Image

#159 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 05:07 PM

I have a sterotype for illegals, no English. Comprende.

wat

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

cool story bro
Posted Image

#160 Fanboy

Fanboy

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:32 PM

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? :-k

#161 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 April 2010 - 09:23 PM

Oh shit son!
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#162 Nogib

Nogib

    *squeezing* the *juice*

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 10:22 PM

Personally I fully support what AZ has done here. About damn time there was something proactively done. This is nothing but win-win for us all!
End of line.

#163 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 April 2010 - 10:29 PM

Personally I fully support what AZ has done here. About damn time there was something proactively done. This is nothing but win-win for us all!


coolstorybro
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#164 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 April 2010 - 11:03 PM

Link plzzzzzz


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...VELk47QVBw.cspx
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#165 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2010 - 11:32 PM

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.
Posted Image

#166 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 30 April 2010 - 12:15 AM

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.

Edited by IRHari, 30 April 2010 - 12:47 AM.
fixed4liberaldouche

"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#167 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 12:30 AM

The law doesn't say they can't racially profile.

it says they can't use it all by itself.
Posted Image

#168 xycury

xycury

    there is only one

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 01:28 AM

So they use the "random clause" that will mean just pulling false positives to balance it out?

Though the whole areested part seems over the line.


I'm guessing after the financial reform... This is going to be next on his list?

#169 BigT

BigT

    Hey Zach...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 02:57 AM

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.


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.

#170 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:00 AM

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.


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.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#171 JolietJake

JolietJake

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:02 AM

Police have never wrongfully stopped someone for a traffic violation.

I enjoy the videos and puns posted by Joliet Jake. I think he's almost as funny as my favorite comedian, Dane Cook. Now excuse me while I listen to Fallout Boy's music on their myspace page.


#172 VipFREAK

VipFREAK

    Fun Knee!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:33 AM

If you're talking in terms of money sure, if in terms of "safety" no...

My Summer Motto: "When Nature turns off the damn heat I'll turn off my A/C"


Trade List

#173 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:54 AM

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.

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.


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.
Posted Image

#174 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:16 AM

Myke - if you'd spend more time reading what other people actually post instead of your usual
Spoiler
, you would have seen my post where I said the following:

The problem with this particular piece of legislation, as someone else pointed out, is the "Papers, please." mentality that it *could* foster. There needs to be a strict set of guidelines for when an official can ask for a citizen to produce personal paperwork - otherwise, it's too close to an unwarranted search for my tastes. I mean, hell, it's not like *I* carry proof of citizenship with me at all times. The idea of an officer being "suspicious" being enough cause to warrant such a demand just doesn't jive well with me.


All I'm asking is how this one state's bill differs from existing federal law (outside of who gets to enforce it). The only thing you can come up with is a legal loophole.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#175 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:24 AM

A loophole is an unintended consequence.

This is not unintended. Not in the slightest.
Posted Image

#176 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:27 AM

I assume you have the evidence to back up this claim?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#177 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:46 AM

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:

After signing the new law requiring police to check out people who may be illegal immigrants, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was asked how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened. “I don’t know,” she replied. “I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like.”


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 fucking stuffed already.
Posted Image

#178 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:53 AM

Spoiler


*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.

Edited by UncleBob, 30 April 2010 - 05:04 AM.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#179 BigT

BigT

    Hey Zach...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 05:27 AM

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.


I honestly have no idea who Byron York is - I'd have to check Wikipedia. I mainly listen to KFI 640 http://www.kfiam640....ges/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/t...oryId=126390888

#180 fatherofcaitlyn

fatherofcaitlyn

    Der Uber Hoarder

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 April 2010 - 10:31 AM

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.thenewspa...ews/31/3104.asp

EDIT: The crazy peoples' point of view.

http://www.rense.com...0/factsheet.htm

Keyword in the article is Maricopa.

Edited by fatherofcaitlyn, 30 April 2010 - 12:21 PM.

Synergize, bitches!
Posted Image