So - what do you think of the Arizona immigration bill?


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
cameracollector is offline cameracollector Post #11  April 28,2010, 7:32pm
cameracollect…'s Avatar

is not ready for Missouri summer

Virtuoso

Joined: May 2008

Missouri

Posts: 3,364

See profile

post being modded - gah.

But zal, I looked up the bill on the Arizona state legislature website and sure enough, the "reasonable suspicion" language is in there. Critics are not making that up. There is nothing "mere" about this legislation.

So yes, anyone concerned about looking "suspicious" is at risk and my previous point (about those non-Americans who are white) stands.
Last edited by cameracollector; April 28,2010 at 7:37pm. Reason: sticky keyboard - wth?
 
  Reply With Quote
rocchio is offline rocchio Post #12  April 28,2010, 9:18pm
rocchio's Avatar

Life is good!

Veteran

Joined: Jan 2009

Somewhere, USA

Posts: 1,444

See profile

cameracollector wrote :
Interesting discussion. I agree with dito and jayjay that the drug war cannot be won. I am in favor of legalizing, regulating, and taxing the heck out of most substances so we can redirect drug war money to something far more productive. What makes us think we can win against drugs when we couldn't win against alcohol?

It's been 25 years since I spent much time along the US-Mexico border and I assume much has changed. The Arizona law sounds like one that was passed out of sheer frustration and a sense that the issue has become overwhelming. I can understand this (even as a liberal!).

At the same time, I'm extremely concerned about the racial profiling. It seems to me that if one person is asked to show his/her proof of citizenship, then all people should be asked. The way the law is written now, a person who is here illegally from Canada or Europe or Australia or New Zealand is far less likely to be questioned for looking "reasonably suspicious." IMHO, there's no arguing that this aspect of the law is discriminatory, questionable and just plain ugly. It's no different from being pulled over for DWB (driving while black). Would we support Arizona for enacting a law targeting and profiling African Americans? All people with funny accents? People with blue eyes? This is no different.
Cameracollector, I agree with you and Ditto (and when have I ever disagreed with Ditto! ) regarding the failure of the "Drug War" and prohibition, in general, for many of the same reasons I am against the prohibition of alchohol. Where we differ, however, is the taxation. I feel that taxes on tobacco and alcohol or too high, so I certainly would not want to see exhorbitant taxes on marijuana, regardless of the supposed nobility of the cause the revenue would go towards (I'm also skeptical that government would perform such a task that well. In Virginia, for example, lottery proceeds were earmarked specifically for education, nearly 20 years ago--it still has not happened yet!).

As far protecting our borders is concerned, I do believe the Arizona law is an excellent start. I believe in immigration and am not xenophobic, but immigrants must assimilate into a culture of shared values, as all immigrants have done before. This process, in my opinion, in in danger if we do not address the problem of vast and widespread illegal immigration.

That being said I would be oppossed to any draconian, illegal, and harsh methods used against human being simply in search of a better life. The fact that corrupt Mexican officials and police most cruelly and shamefully rob, beat, and even kill, and extort money on an exceedingly regular basis those who immigrate to their own country from other parts of Central America does not in any way justify harsh treatment of Meixcans who try to immigrate here either legally or illegally. We do, however, have a right to enforce the existing and humane immigration laws already on the books.
 
  Reply With Quote
jacques102 is offline jacques102 Post #13  April 28,2010, 10:32pm
jacques102's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2010

Santa Barbara

Posts: 603

See profile

Interesting perspective chicgal. It is nice to see this has remained civil.

I agree completely with what Arizona is doing also. The problem is the Feds are not doing their job. It is the feds job to secure the borders. The drug problems and violence are already spilling over. They are training to send many LEO into Mexico to help fight the cartels. These LEO are already being threatened. Next thing you know, their families, here in the US, are going to be targeted.

Chicgals perspective on the abuse of the system is classic. I have been to many border towns around Cali and Texas. It will be no easy task for Az to do what they are talking about. There will be a lot of people to stop and question.

The part that bothers me, it is not so much "racial profiling" as much as stopping and demanding ID and proof of residence. If everyone wore the same skin, this would be close to a police state type of action. My concern is that it leads to that. You give them an inch, they will take a mile. Remember the Patriot Act. Do we want more of that?

But I do not have a better idea for what Arizona should do. So be it.
 
  Reply With Quote
jayjay is offline jayjay Post #14  April 29,2010, 5:58am
jayjay's Avatar

...things seem to have gotten quiet around here.

Sage

Joined: Jun 2008

Brownsville, TX

Posts: 10,932

See profile

jacques102 wrote :
Chicgals perspective on the abuse of the system is classic. I have been to many border towns around Cali and Texas. It will be no easy task for Az to do what they are talking about. There will be a lot of people to stop and question.

The part that bothers me, it is not so much "racial profiling" as much as stopping and demanding ID and proof of residence. If everyone wore the same skin, this would be close to a police state type of action. My concern is that it leads to that. You give them an inch, they will take a mile. Remember the Patriot Act. Do we want more of that?

But I do not have a better idea for what Arizona should do. So be it.
Supposedly, this law isn't about 'stopping and questioning' people. There must be some reason for police to believe a person may not be in the U.S. legally. Also, legal residents are always supposed to have their 'greencard' with them anyway.
 
  Reply With Quote
kruser is offline kruser Post #15  April 29,2010, 9:12am
kruser's Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Apr 2010

Chicago

Posts: 4

See profile

It's a step in the right direction. We need to better enforce our immigration laws, and not just along the Mexican border. If you are here legally and paying for all the services you and your family are taking advantage of, I have absolutely no problem with you being here.

I don't think we should make it easier to get into the country, we have so many problems right now, we need to take care of ourselves, get back on track, bring down our deficit and bring up our standing in the eyes of other nations in the world, if we can't help ourselves, how can we help others?
 
  Reply With Quote
jayjay is offline jayjay Post #16  April 29,2010, 9:46am
jayjay's Avatar

...things seem to have gotten quiet around here.

Sage

Joined: Jun 2008

Brownsville, TX

Posts: 10,932

See profile

cameracollector wrote :
post being modded - gah.

But zal, I looked up the bill on the Arizona state legislature website and sure enough, the "reasonable suspicion" language is in there. Critics are not making that up. There is nothing "mere" about this legislation.

So yes, anyone concerned about looking "suspicious" is at risk and my previous point (about those non-Americans who are white) stands.
But that's the same thing that exists right now with regard to stopping people for anything. The police can't stop you while you're driving just because they don't like the look of you. You have to either do something wrong or they will set up to perform random checks (such as for DUI). The police already have to abide by these types of reasonable suspicion restrictions and we don't have massive cases of discrimination.

I've heard people on TV associate this law with 'driving while black'. The thing is.....African-Americans are not stopped for 'driving while black'....so I don't see the fear Hispanics need to have of this. While I'm very sympathetic to the position of Mexicans who would like to live in the U.S. it really seems to me that the underlying objective of most people who are against this AZ law is for Mexicans to be able to freely cross the border and live in the U.S. without restriction and for those who are not here legally to be able to remain. That just doesn't seem workable to me.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #17  April 29,2010, 10:49am
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

cameracollector wrote :
zal, I've taken this language from the Senate Engrossed bill: (I've added underlining): www.azleg.gov

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

What part of this, in your view, protects against the kind of racial profiling people are concerned about? Let's not forget that poor people are less likely to own cars or have a driver's license or carry it around with them. Yes, I know they can go get a non-driver ID or a passport, but why?

Even the Economist is calling the bill "native hysteria," and the Economist is hardly a liberal rag.
You've quoted 1 sentence of a 15 page bill. The full text is here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

I'll try responding to you by cut pasting the pertinent parts of the bill, but eha's limitations requires several separate posts. For now, SB1070 deals with a variety of issues as follows: 1) Illegal immigrants and their illegal presence in AZ; 2) The crime of human smuggling; 3) unlawful hiring of illegal immigrants by businesses and 4) transporting and/or harboring illegal aliens.
Your issues seem to be with the first...Law enforcement's ability to arrest illegal immigrants. I'll address in my next post.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #18  April 29,2010, 10:50am
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

cameracollector wrote :
post being modded - gah.

But zal, I looked up the bill on the Arizona state legislature website and sure enough, the "reasonable suspicion" language is in there. Critics are not making that up. There is nothing "mere" about this legislation.

So yes, anyone concerned about looking "suspicious" is at risk and my previous point (about those non-Americans who are white) stands.
I was modded too. I posted the link to the full bill. I'll address in portions.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #19  April 29,2010, 11:01am
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

cameracollector wrote :
post being modded - gah.

But zal, I looked up the bill on the Arizona state legislature website and sure enough, the "reasonable suspicion" language is in there. Critics are not making that up. There is nothing "mere" about this legislation.

So yes, anyone concerned about looking "suspicious" is at risk and my previous point (about those non-Americans who are white) stands.
Not true. You quoted one sentence of the bill:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL . . .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).

This statement merely states that law enforcement will ascertain immigration status as permitted by federal statute. (In other words it states "Arizona Law Enforcement shall enforce federal immigration law.") The section immediately before this bans jurisdictions within AZ from creating "safeharbors" like the one in San Francisco. The section you partially quoted continues: (contintued in next post)
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #20  April 29,2010, 11:12am
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

cameracollector wrote :
post being modded - gah.

But zal, I looked up the bill on the Arizona state legislature website and sure enough, the "reasonable suspicion" language is in there. Critics are not making that up. There is nothing "mere" about this legislation.

So yes, anyone concerned about looking "suspicious" is at risk and my previous point (about those non-Americans who are white) stands.
Continued:

ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. ... IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL . . .MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

So, status will be checked only if the person is arrested. Moreover, the statute specifically bans the use of race, color, or national origin, in enforcing the law. The statute goes on to state:
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION. or 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

So, production of a valid state id (or tribal id) is presumption of legality. You asked why a person should obtain a valid (non-driver's license) id? How about renting shelter, flying to another destination, opening a bank account, enrolling in school, or any of the many other reasons why valid id is required during the normal course of business.

I'm looking forward to reading the Economist article, although I'm fairly sure that Britain's immigration policies are more strictly enforced than ours. Also, it appears that a large majority of Americans support the AZ law. According to a Rasmussen Poll over 60% NATIONALLY favor local law enforcement enforcing illegal immigration.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« Tax write offs. | Politics | Example of a union in the wrong..... »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Taxation without Representation....the Health Care Bill...ugh! legend29 Politics 49 March 31,2010 8:13am
The bill is signed! cameracollector Politics 13 March 27,2010 2:16am
the oklahoma abortion bill notyet Christian Singles 6 December 17,2009 10:10pm
Shocking news story from Arizona eH_Advice_Admin_Lori Chit Chat 14 August 6,2009 1:36pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“The tennis ball story is a good analogy, RD, and that's how I interpret "gut feeling" -- a conclusion/sense of something that's a thought, not a feeling; though it will have feelings associated with ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion

“Agree. Given where you are emotionally, I would cease all communication with Mr. Trade Show. You're vulnerable. He's up for a challenge. It's playing with fire. You'll be in a bad place in the ... ” –  emma_hazards

Join the “Received lovely email from former poofer” discussion

“How about phone calls, then?” –  barbarella_42

Join the “Advice on Response time” discussion

“I have never spoken to a woman like he has. Yeah, I have never spoken to a woman like that either. It is a hard call to whether he is just as jerk, or whether he is a player. Both are feasible ... ” –  ScottK

Join the “So, men. Explain this to me, please!” discussion

“I have come to this same conclusion. Thank you.” –  bibittyboo

Join the “Confused about date #2” discussion

“Harmonygirl, I do not usually make up my mind on blanket situations but instead would examine each one on it's own merits, so I cannot answer your question. However, just in the going about of daily ... ” –  Ephemera

Join the “Atheism, Religion and Tolerance” discussion

“I was ok until the kiss on the cheek part....That doesn't sound like your defenses were up at all... It's one thing for a guy to walk up and start with the cheesy lines....But as soon as I say, "no ... ” –  Ingytravel

Join the “So this guy walks into a bar . . .” discussion

“ No. It is not wise. You have to throw all your eggs into one basket for love to work at all. Relationships are inherently riskier than careers. You can't use the same rules. You might lose ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Becoming Exclusive” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:45am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0