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


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
zal is offline zal Post #21  April 29,2010, 11:20am
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

jayjay wrote :
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.
This is true JayJay. In fact this "new" statute is simply a revision of an old statute that specified the circumstances under which police may stop and/or arrest a person. Those guidelines have not changed except that the state legislature has created a duty requiring officers to arrest a person who has violated federal immigration law. . The law simply ensures that they will not turn a blind eye.
Last edited by zal; April 29,2010 at 2:15pm. Reason: clarity
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #22  April 29,2010, 11:23am
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

zal wrote :
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)

Everything about this bill could have been dealt with without a public announcement.

The politics involved only served to score theoretical points & to make many hispanics (both legal & illegal) uncomfortabe.

The law already exists.

I love how people do things knowing full well that they are instigating drama. Big babies!
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #23  April 29,2010, 12:25pm
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
Everything about this bill could have been dealt with without a public announcement.

The politics involved only served to score theoretical points & to make many hispanics (both legal & illegal) uncomfortabe.

The law already exists.

I love how people do things knowing full well that they are instigating drama. Big babies!
"Public announcement"? I'm not sure I understand your point, Bigfincat. It was a bill that was voted on and reported in the press. Nothing unusual about that at all. By the time it reached the governor's desk both sides had been pressing there arguments in their attempts to sway her signature or veto. She carefully weighed the pros and cons and chose to sign it into law. Arizona suffers from a perverse "open" government, unlike the rampant closed door meetings and secret sessions so common in Illinois and other places.

While you are correct that the law already exists, state and local law enforcement officials are not required to enforce federal law. This bill requires local police and Az municipalities to enforce the federal immigration laws. It prevents the situation you have in California and other places where certain cities enact "sanctuary laws" whereby they declare that the town's law enforcement will not arrest people for violating federal immigration statute.
 
  Reply With Quote
jacques102 is offline jacques102 Post #24  April 29,2010, 12:28pm
jacques102's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2010

Santa Barbara

Posts: 603

See profile

jayjay wrote :
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.
Dunno about your state, but here they will stop you on a whim and lie about it later. Just remember, forgot who said this

"Those who will give up essential liberties, for temporary safety, deserve neither"

I belive the state has every right to enforce what the feds aren't. The feds aren't doing their job. Somebodies has to do it.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #25  April 29,2010, 12:28pm
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

It seems to me that the concern that people have is that police might engage in racial profiling while enforcing this statute by specifically stopping hispanics and demanding id's. Such a practice of racial profiling violates federal civil rights laws and is specifically forbidden by the AZ statute. If, in practice, police start abusing civil rights, corrective measures will need to be taken. That hasn't happened.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #26  April 29,2010, 12:30pm
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

jacques102 wrote :
Dunno about your state, but here they will stop you on a whim and lie about it later. Just remember, forgot who said this

"Those who will give up essential liberties, for temporary safety, deserve neither"

[snipped]
In Arizona, cops don't typically stop people for no reason. The person you quoted was Benjamin Franklin.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #27  April 29,2010, 1:22pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

zal wrote :
"Public announcement"? I'm not sure I understand your point, Bigfincat. It was a bill that was voted on and reported in the press. Nothing unusual about that at all. By the time it reached the governor's desk both sides had been pressing there arguments in their attempts to sway her signature or veto. She carefully weighed the pros and cons and chose to sign it into law. Arizona suffers from a perverse "open" government, unlike the rampant closed door meetings and secret sessions so common in Illinois and other places.

While you are correct that the law already exists, state and local law enforcement officials are not required to enforce federal law. This bill requires local police and Az municipalities to enforce the federal immigration laws. It prevents the situation you have in California and other places where certain cities enact "sanctuary laws" whereby they declare that the town's law enforcement will not arrest people for violating federal immigration statute.
It is a redundant bill.

As was said by an Az law enforcement official near the border, they have been performing in the exact manner stated in the bill for the last 30 years. It changes nothing. Just instigates debate & drama. Transparency is not always a good thing.

This could be handled by just communicating with local Chiefs about stepping up enforcement. I think that in the case of escalating violence that would be a natural response of local LEO's anyhow. Where violence/crime is not escalating I would doubt that day to day actions by officers would change much, if at all.

Of course it happens all of the time that we do redundant time wasting, focus wasting & energy wasting things.

It does not require a legislative policy to enforce an existing policy.

I think that the President would agree that we should spend energy in more focused ways that tackle problems directly.

The fact that this is a law enforcement issue it should be handled by law enforcement. If officials wish to chime in on it they should do so by bringing their suggestions to local law enforcement heads.

When law enforcement decides to crack down on anything on the books, a new bill & public debate is not necessary.

We certainly don't hear about all of the ways that politics influences local law enforcement officials & their policies. WHY THIS ONE?
 
  Reply With Quote
rocchio is offline rocchio Post #28  April 29,2010, 1:22pm
rocchio's Avatar

Life is good!

Veteran

Joined: Jan 2009

Somewhere, USA

Posts: 1,444

See profile

 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #29  April 29,2010, 1:26pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

I actually trust law enforcement where I am from.

I cannot say that other states will behave in a responsible manner. I would hope that they do.

In more racially charged regions, the language could be a problem. As Zal states, I would hope that if abuses are brought to light then they should be dealt with.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #30  April 29,2010, 1:42pm
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
It is a redundant bill.

As was said by an Az law enforcement official near the border, they have been performing in the exact manner stated in the bill for the last 30 years. It changes nothing. Just instigates debate & drama. Transparency is not always a good thing.

This could be handled by just communicating with local Chiefs about stepping up enforcement. I think that in the case of escalating violence that would be a natural response of local LEO's anyhow. Where violence/crime is not escalating I would doubt that day to day actions by officers would change much, if at all.

Of course it happens all of the time that we do redundant time wasting, focus wasting & energy wasting things.

It does not require a legislative policy to enforce an existing policy.

I think that the President would agree that we should spend energy in more focused ways that tackle problems directly.

The fact that this is a law enforcement issue it should be handled by law enforcement. If officials wish to chime in on it they should do so by bringing their suggestions to local law enforcement heads.

When law enforcement decides to crack down on anything on the books, a new bill & public debate is not necessary.

We certainly don't hear about all of the ways that politics influences local law enforcement officials & their policies. WHY THIS ONE?
It's not redundant at all. The fact that local police near the border have been enforcing federal law is irrelevant. Unless required by state law, a state law enforcement officer is not required to enforce federal law. This means that a political body (i.e. mayor, council, whatever) can choose NOT to enforce the law. This law requires ALL jurisdictions within Arizona to enforce the law.
 
  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