On May 13 2010 14:47 allluckysevens7777 wrote: If the Hispanic community in the US is such a powerful economic influence, organize and contribute to a political campaign that supports your views. Don't boycott businesses, it doesn't really serve anyone's best interests in the long run.
Disagreed. Either way, there's a much more important force that's going to keep immigration fairly open, and regardless of what is said publicly, the GOP will not oppose them on the national level, and probably in CA and TX too. Hell, Bush practically handed them 100 billion dollars during his term.
Sorry, it's hard to find a good pic to show Big Agriculture. :\
My mother legally immigrated to the US and later went on to obtain citizenship. I, by extension, also became a citizen. It isn't as difficult to obtain citizenship as some people make it sound. However, it is difficult to obtain citizenship if they are an illegal immigrant. But they should not be in the country in the first place.
I don't think people are against immigration. They are against *ILLEGAL* immigration. The 'illegal' part is the distinction people often overlook. This bias is immediately evident in the title of this topic 'Arizona SB1070 Anti Immigration Law'; making it sound like the law is against immigration. The omission of the word 'illegal' completely turns the idea around.
The Constitution has become irrelevant(unfortunately). People will conditionally invoke the Constitution only when it suits their ends. Ultimately it all boils down to politics. Politicians will pander to the demographic that gets them the most votes. Or spin issues to appeal to the masses. Anti immigration or anti illegal immigration?
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
1. The law doesn't allow a cop to just walk up to any Mexican and ask for their papers... so I wish ignorant people like the OP would stop saying it would be open season on Mexicans. You can only question someone if it is during a police required situation (like if someone had a car crash).
2. The law specifically says you can't profile based on race. If you don't think this will work then you have a problem with police not the law. Infact, if the police officer can't prove he had merit to ask then he can be SUED. I'm sure they will still run around racial profiling.
3. If you are in the US on a vista or visiting for whatever reason FEDERAL law already says you must carry documentation with you. Last I checked it's still ILLEGAL to be in the country so really all this does is enforce long-standing federal law. What it does is give is officers a legal backing for following up on suspicions.
4. Your roommate is a moron. You can't choose to not follow certain laws just because you don't want to.
5. Comparing this to Nazi Germany is as pathetic as Tea partiers who compare higher tax rates (very low historically) to having genocide commited against them.
6. Noone should give a shit waht the cheif of police's and such say because they are political figureheads. It's widely known that while the CoP are against this law the actual police orginizations are for it.
7. Your example of Arizona being a part of Mexico at one point is absurd and non-relevant. we just magically owned the whole east and north parts of the country from nothingness I suppose.
8. Our state passed it. Most of the people in the state (and apparently the country by many polls) are for this law. This is a democracy. On top of that we have state rights. Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care.
Seconded (although in a moderated tone of voice).
I read through that entire freakin' bill. At no point in the bill does it allow for racial profiling of any sort. The officers are required to have probable cause before asking for documentation confirming that they are allowed to be here. What is wrong with this?
Probable cause is not simply intuition on the officer's part. He can't just look at you and go, "Hmmm he's not white, lemme check his documents." He needs to actually be able to justify it or he can lose his job or be sued.
On May 14 2010 14:05 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Quite a political hot topic on a gaming site.
My mother legally immigrated to the US and later went on to obtain citizenship. I, by extension, also became a citizen. It isn't as difficult to obtain citizenship as some people make it sound. However, it is difficult to obtain citizenship if they are an illegal immigrant. But they should not be in the country in the first place.
I don't think people are against immigration. They are against *ILLEGAL* immigration. The 'illegal' part is the distinction people often overlook. This bias is immediately evident in the title of this topic 'Arizona SB1070 Anti Immigration Law'; making it sound like the law is against immigration. The omission of the word 'illegal' completely turns the idea around.
The Constitution has become irrelevant(unfortunately). People will conditionally invoke the Constitution only when it suits their ends. Ultimately it all boils down to politics. Politicians will pander to the demographic that gets them the most votes. Or spin issues to appeal to the masses. Anti immigration or anti illegal immigration?
Yea, definitely agree, as you pointed out, the title of this thread is a clear example.
Most people here seem to have flat out incorrect information about this bill. Read it yourself and see what it says because most of the people posting in this thread are grossly misinformed.
On May 26 2010 17:06 SpicyCrab wrote: Most people here seem to have flat out incorrect information about this bill. Read it yourself and see what it says because most of the people posting in this thread are grossly misinformed.
Wait are you telling me comedy shows aren't the final say on whether something is good or bad? whoa
On May 26 2010 17:06 SpicyCrab wrote: Most people here seem to have flat out incorrect information about this bill. Read it yourself and see what it says because most of the people posting in this thread are grossly misinformed.
Wait are you telling me comedy shows aren't the final say on whether something is good or bad? whoa
Institutionalized problems don't need to be written into bills, the only thing that's needed is discretion.
Also, sheriffs seem to be a pretty good judge and most across the country, in places where there are far more illegal immigrants than in AZ, think it's bad. Your economy is going to suffer, your police force is going to suffer and crime is going to flourish.
Politicians are using it for cheap political points, when it's simply bad policy. Xenophobia is stopping people from seeing that until it's too late.
On May 12 2010 10:10 Molybdenum wrote: (didn't watch the vid) Not from AZ, I'm from Ohio, and we have a fair bit of illegals here. Actually, a few years back (3-4) a drunk illegal immigrant and his buddy (maybe legal, at least one was not), crashed their car into my car parked on the street. They were both hammered, and tried to run away from the scene. Police later found them, maybe they were deported, but the insurance company paid for the car (Kelly Blue Book value). Illegals are really just a money sink on society. They receive our benefits, but do not pay taxes.
There's clearly a problem of illegal immigration (especially in AZ), and this is one way to try to stop it. Really, this law doesn't bother me. Sure, if you look illegal, you get stopped and asked to see ID. If you're legal, show them the ID, you're on your way in less than 30 seconds. It's a simple way to try to cut down on illegal immigration, that's all it is. Really, I think they just wanted to get the ball rolling. Get people discussing, get them coming up with better solutions.
I don't understand why people are so upset, sure, they're profiling, but just show them some ID if you're legal and you move on. It happens at airports too. Until there is a better solution, this one seems "good enough" and will get people talking about it, which may have been the intent of lawmakers.
Edit: Awesome, got one person who agrees.
I live in Columbus and I do have to say the place is completely full of Somalians. Most of the ones I know are legal at least in the sense of having a green card, but I know that many aren't.
To me this is pretty much the issue with this law. Racism affects what happens *when* you show your ID - this guy was basically threatened with deportation because he "looked Mexican", and so his ID was not "believable".
One of the defenses I heard with the Arizona “papers, please” law is the time-tested excuse “people who aren’t breaking the law have nothing to fear.” Well clearly, that was the disingenuous reasoning of the privileged, consciously or unconsciously. For people who are or look Mexican (or from another targeted group, depending on the times), if you come to the attention of the police, then whatever “proof” you have of citizenship, permanent residency, tourism etc may not be believed.
The possibility of this kind of error by federal law enforcement officers trained in immigration law is why so many civil rights activists are concerned with Arizona’s new immigration law, which would require local police, untrained in immigration laws, to take action based on judgments about “suspicious” immigration status.
Meh, that garbage won't hold because it goes against the constitution. At least I like to think so. It's a terrible "solution". When you start to make law that only apply to a certain "race", you know you fail.
On May 29 2010 00:05 Djzapz wrote: Meh, that garbage won't hold because it goes against the constitution. At least I like to think so. It's a terrible "solution". When you start to make law that only apply to a certain "race", you know you fail.
Ah, neo-cons, you guys need to learn life.
It doesn't only apply to a certain race though.
Seeing as it's a watered down federal law I find it hard to believe that it goes against the constitution. I have never seen a law blown so out of proportion as it has been in this case.
Arizona needs to forget about this one right now until they can come up with an alternative. Los Angeles is no longer conducting business with the state of Arizona until they get this thing in order, that has to be hurting them big time
On May 14 2010 14:05 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Quite a political hot topic on a gaming site.
My mother legally immigrated to the US and later went on to obtain citizenship. I, by extension, also became a citizen. It isn't as difficult to obtain citizenship as some people make it sound. However, it is difficult to obtain citizenship if they are an illegal immigrant. But they should not be in the country in the first place.
I don't think people are against immigration. They are against *ILLEGAL* immigration. The 'illegal' part is the distinction people often overlook. This bias is immediately evident in the title of this topic 'Arizona SB1070 Anti Immigration Law'; making it sound like the law is against immigration. The omission of the word 'illegal' completely turns the idea around.
The Constitution has become irrelevant(unfortunately). People will conditionally invoke the Constitution only when it suits their ends. Ultimately it all boils down to politics. Politicians will pander to the demographic that gets them the most votes. Or spin issues to appeal to the masses. Anti immigration or anti illegal immigration?
I'm going to have to second this, especially the last part. Living in AZ, not much has changed. This bill was purely political, as much of the actions that the police can take were already available to them prior to this bill. This law will do nothing but win voters locally and make AZ look racist.
For long term practical purposes, there was no purpose to this bill. It will not solve the illegal immigration problem and it made AZ look very bad at the national level. I'm sure the senator that suggested it will be re-elected because he pushed for this, but honestly, that's all he was aiming for.
On May 29 2010 00:05 Djzapz wrote: Meh, that garbage won't hold because it goes against the constitution. At least I like to think so. It's a terrible "solution". When you start to make law that only apply to a certain "race", you know you fail.
Ah, neo-cons, you guys need to learn life.
It doesn't only apply to a certain race though.
Seeing as it's a watered down federal law I find it hard to believe that it goes against the constitution. I have never seen a law blown so out of proportion as it has been in this case.
It's the application of the law. That includes institutional problems and the fact that people don't worry about federal law enforcement on an every day basis. Federal agents are not only better trained on issues of immigration, but they're also only seen when the situation is significant.
I'm trying to think of a situation to describe it, and this is the best I can come up with so bear with me. In highschool, you can either get punished by teachers or administrators. The school has the right to search your locker at any time, but obviously you think it's unfair if they do. Kids get in trouble with teachers all the time for minor things like not doing homework or sleeping in class, but you'll only be punished relative to that event, which means the reprimand is minor. When administrators get called in, it's because of a serious infraction in which case they're far more likely to search your locker. In this case, teachers pulling all the stops, even for minor violations. Then throw in an institutionalized problem where the teachers historically single out non-white kids as trouble makers.
The supreme court has ruled repeatedly (including a 9-0 decision in Muehler v. Mena) that officers engaged in lawful contact do not need reasonable suspicion to question a person about immigration status. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html
In Mena, officers were conducting a search of a house for drugs. During that lawful contact, officers questioned Mena about her immigration status. On appeal, Mena argued that such questioning violated her 4th Amendment rights. The court of appeals agreed with Mena. The supreme court however ruled 9-0 that the questioning did not violate her rights because the officers did not need reasonable suspicion and the questioning did not constitute a discrete event.
Basically, the decision says that if you are walking down the street the cops can not stop and ask your immigration status because that would constitute a seizure under the 4th Amendment. But, if you are already engaged in lawful contact with the police, they can question you about anything they want unless the questioning extends the duration of the original detention.
On May 29 2010 00:05 Djzapz wrote: Meh, that garbage won't hold because it goes against the constitution. At least I like to think so. It's a terrible "solution". When you start to make law that only apply to a certain "race", you know you fail.
Ah, neo-cons, you guys need to learn life.
It doesn't only apply to a certain race though.
Seeing as it's a watered down federal law I find it hard to believe that it goes against the constitution. I have never seen a law blown so out of proportion as it has been in this case.
It's the application of the law. That includes institutional problems and the fact that people don't worry about federal law enforcement on an every day basis. Federal agents are not only better trained on issues of immigration, but they're also only seen when the situation is significant.
I'm trying to think of a situation to describe it, and this is the best I can come up with so bear with me. In highschool, you can either get punished by teachers or administrators. The school has the right to search your locker at any time, but obviously you think it's unfair if they do. Kids get in trouble with teachers all the time for minor things like not doing homework or sleeping in class, but you'll only be punished relative to that event, which means the reprimand is minor. When administrators get called in, it's because of a serious infraction in which case they're far more likely to search your locker. In this case, teachers pulling all the stops, even for minor violations. Then throw in an institutionalized problem where the teachers historically single out non-white kids as trouble makers.
This works on the base assumption that Federal agents are actually the "administrators" of the regular police department.
This is simply not the case.
It is not like on TV where FBI swoops in and takes jurisdiction on anything they want. They just work on things that generally cross state lines. Baring that the local police department will retain jurisdiction no matter the seriousness of the event unless it's a government building/property that the event occurred on.
Most police officers are trained rather extensively on immigration, at least I was when I went through my academy because I mean...being in a southern state means you HAVE to deal with things like that. It's just the fact of the matter.
The only reason you see FBI or the DEA having the "major" events is because those are the ones most prone to jumping state lines and those you'll hear about on the news. Hell San Antonio ended up catching someone that was transporting over 2500 lbs of Marijuana... that's a lot of weed and from what I know SA retained the lead on that case.
From the perspective of students, in violation or not, that separation is irrelevant; the threat to them just increased dramatically.
As someone who was going to enter enforcement, do you believe the Law (big L law, not just this specific law) is applied equally? I suppose we'd really need someone that has worked in it to comment.
Why does everyone get worked up over Arizona enforcing a federal law that they won't enforce?
Hell, I've seen groups on TV saying that some Mexicans think it is theirs anyways. I say we give it to them and tell them to pay back our massive debt they helped us rack up.
This country is going to end up looking like Greece, and I hope I have the money to move somewhere else before that happens.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.epslogos.net/logo_images/logos/FARM-BUREAU-CO-OP.jpg){kind=logo}
