EPTArizona SB1070 Anti Immigration Law - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
astalkulo
United States444 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/01/20100501arizona-immigration-problem.html http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/higher-immigration--lower-crime-15297 http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/15/arizona-turns-immigrant-workers-into-criminals/ http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2010-05-10-phoenix-business_N.htm?csp=34 http://www.azcentral.com/community/nephoenix/articles/2010/05/11/20100511arizona-immigration-phoenix-hispanic-business0512.html | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 12 2010 13:39 Jibba wrote: I don't care about political correctness. I just happen to be educated on immigration. It's a rarity on TL. No? First of all, its a state encroaching on federal jurisdiction. It's immediately unconstitutional right there. Second, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS? PROBABLY CAUSE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. They're not. This is an issue that scores easy political points, until local tax rates go up in Arizona, police response rate goes down, and the overall Arizona economy sinks because businesses don't want to operate there. It's shortsighted and stupid. If the state is suffering economically and structually (deaths, lawlessness etc) and they feel they can prevent it by such matters it is NOT encroaching on Fedral jurisdiction. This law does not force Border Patrol agents to change their measures but just state run officials. They are NOT increasing border security and are NOT changing policy about how the government should protect the border... they are ONLY addressing in-state and state-related issues. There are many ways to interpret the 4th amendment. For starters these searches would not be "unreasonable" in the context of Arizona's situation. The government can already request the immigration status of anybody without asking their permission and this just an extension of that. The violation under this law would be requesting the "papers" of a random person. However all this law does is, if you have suspicion, require that an Officer ASK if someone is a citizen. If from this they have further suspicion on the matter this law would prevent them from taking your papers without your consent. However the law specifically says that their immigration status would be determined WITH the federal government pursuant to 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). Basically it means we find out who you are, contact the government to see if you are a citizen and if not certain procedures are taken. Finding out who you are is nothing new and cops have always been allowed to request personal information from names to drivers liscense. Now if you have no way of identifiying yourself or have no liscense then this potentially opens a new list (like you going to jail if driving) which would eventually lead to finding out your status anyone. You are severly overestimating the impact this will have on the state (economically). The entire Phoenix metro area (one of the largest cities in the US) said they would lose 90m over 5 years. Is that significant? Not really. Does it hurt? Yes. However I have no doubt things will calm down since it isn't unnatural for people to make blind knee-jerk reactions to hot topic things. A year from now noone will give a shit and they will find the next thing to be angry about. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On May 12 2010 10:37 Kaneh wrote: How are laws going to stop criminals again? ... really, it's not gonna stop criminals from committing crimes, but it gives police something they can enforce. You can already enforce it. Obama deports 400,000+ illegals a year. Bush did 100,000-300,00. This is just a racist, reactionary law. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 12 2010 14:10 Romantic wrote: You can already enforce it. Obama deports 400,000+ illegals a year. Bush did 100,000-300,00. This is just a racist, reactionary law. Reactionary to what? If Obama was doing such a great job on this issue then Arizona wouldn't feel it necessary to pass this law. What you said makes no sense. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 12 2010 14:14 Romantic wrote: If your hand needs to be held then its a waste of my time Well one would just assume that you conclusion follows from the facts you provided. It doesn't. Therefore it's a reasonable question. Perhaps it would be a waste of time though since fallacies are generally hard to defend. | ||
|
zee
201 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
pro tl debate skills | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 12 2010 14:16 Zeke50100 wrote: @On_Slaught: The state law specifically states (hehe) that it is directed towards illegal immigrants. It is never a state's duty to take immigration into their own hands. Where? All I see in the text is that if you determine someone to be a potential illegal you basically find out if he (with the governments help) is then you hand him over. At no point did you infring upon their judrisdiction. Hell, people would probably chastise police if they knew someone was an illegal immigrant and let him go. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 12 2010 14:20 Romantic wrote: Ah yeah because stating the laws are enforced as they are written completely falsifies this being a racist reactionary law pro tl debate skills Since i'm bored i'll bite. You never laid out why it was racist or reactionary. If you think it's racist then either 1. your right and it will be effective or 2. you think police officers are racist pigs. As far as reactionary my original point still stands. REACTION TO WHAT. If we accept your fact that Obama has been significantly more effective at controlling illegal immigration then why would a state feel the need to pass this? It simply doesn't follow. | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
Economic boycotts have a history of success in motivating political action, most notably in Arizona's refusal to acknowledge Martin Luther King, Jr Day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day#Reluctance_to_observe Boycott Arizona and boycott any company based in Arizona. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arizona_companies Includes U-haul, PF Changs, Taco Time. | ||
|
PrideNeverDies
Kazakhstan74 Posts
On May 12 2010 14:20 Romantic wrote:pro tl debate skills oh the ironing | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
These people who you are defending are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, they are ILLEGAL, not supposed to be there. People who stick up for illegal immigrants are the same people who agree that Terrorists should have the same rights as Americans and be prosecuted like us, meanwhile they chop our fucking heads off with dull axes on National TV. Get a grip world, the law DOES NOT state that they can just ARREST ANY PERSON WHO LOOKS LIKE A MEXICAN, they still need to be doing something suspicious. Obama sucks ass, and so does our Government, so the State must do what it has to. End of story. Stop saying Racism and all this non-sense. Read the fucking law. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
You look Mexican, you get harassed. Suspected of being a terrorist, you get citizenship revoked. Live in America, get your phones tapped without a warrant. Live in Texas, have state sponsored religion. Live in Afghanistan, be assassinated by a Tomahawk cruise missile. Be Conservative, have a good civil rights recor- lolol, i lied on this one | ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
On May 12 2010 11:13 phosphorylation wrote: No shit, this is racist. But sometimes, racism can be justified. This is one of them. Uncomfortable? Unsavory? Well, illegally immigrating isn't exactly savory either. On May 11 2010 18:40 phosphorylation wrote: i don't see how xenophobia can be anything more than an significant annoyance in any case, it beats out flat-out racism, which you will find is directed against koreans (and asians) in parts of europe and america... Do two different people use your account, or something? Racism is not to be justified, nor tolerated. | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
On May 12 2010 14:30 v3chr0 wrote: The government fails its job to secure the border, and Arizona suffers, and so do the people. These people who you are defending are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, they are ILLEGAL, not supposed to be there. People who stick up for illegal immigrants are the same people who agree that Terrorists should have the same rights as Americans and be prosecuted like us, meanwhile they chop our fucking heads off with dull axes on National TV. Get a grip world, the law DOES NOT state that they can just ARREST ANY PERSON WHO LOOKS LIKE A MEXICAN, they still need to be doing something suspicious. Obama sucks ass, and so does our Government, so the State must do what it has to. End of story. Stop saying Racism and all this non-sense. Read the fucking law. Last I checked, looking Mexican in an area that happened to be a "popular" smuggling area was doing something suspicious. | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
Last I checked, looking Mexican in an area that happened to be a "popular" smuggling area was doing something suspicious. Yea because using hypothetical situations is just like real life. If you are a Mexican, and an illegal one, you DESERVE to be harassed hanging out in an area that is known for smuggling, and a STATE KNOWN FOR HAVING TONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. These people are NOT supposed to be here in the first place, if 1/5 Mexicans has to be harassed to get 4 illegals out, it's not racism and nor is it anything else but law enforcement. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On May 12 2010 14:37 v3chr0 wrote: Yea lets just use hypothetical situations to make this work. If you are a Mexican, and an illegal one, you DESERVE to be harassed hanging out in an area that is known for smuggling, and a STATE KNOWN FOR HAVING TONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. OK. You go find me 1,000 illegals and demand their "papers" without finding ONE US citizen and I'll think about it. Then again, if you could do that you didn't need this law anyway, eh? | ||
| ||
