Arizona passes controversial immigration bill... - Page 56 - Politics and Economics

FlyWf · 04-30-2010, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveT

Before I go on with more corrections of your perceptions, can you specify who you mean by "Hispanic?" (sort of a touchy issue with Hispanic, Latino, South American, Mexicans, Islanders, et. al.) Cubans tend to vote Republican, btw.

Maybe if you click the link there will be more information?

Appealing to people like you makes appealing to Hispanics impossible for the Republicans.

samsonh · 04-30-2010, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Maybe if you click the link there will be more information?

Appealing to people like you makes appealing to Hispanics impossible for the Republicans.

Is everything about racism Fly? I feel there has to be something in your upbringing that makes you bring it up so often. It is quite odd, you seem to live in a different world than I do. In my world blacks and white hang out together all the time, have relationships, and enjoy each others company. Sure, some elderly people are racist, but most of them are democrats( very odd, but true)

Montius · 04-30-2010, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samsonh

Is everything about racism Fly? I feel there has to be something in your upbringing that makes you bring it up so often. It is quite odd, you seem to live in a different world than I do. In my world blacks and white hang out together all the time, have relationships, and enjoy each others company. Sure, some elderly people are racist, but most of them are democrats( very odd, but true)

He just likes to tilt at windmills and call them republicans/teabaggers.

Montius · 04-30-2010, 12:53 AM

Quote:

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.

Quote:

The word "solely" would be eliminated from the sentence "A law enforcement official or agency … may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in establishing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally.

Bill sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said the intent is to clarify that "this bill prohibits racial profiling in any form." Bill opponents had argued that the word "solely" allowed officers to base their reasonable suspicion on race and color as long as it wasn't just one of them.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...nges29-ON.html

dinopoker · 04-30-2010, 01:47 AM

Quote:

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.
Quote:
The word "solely" would be eliminated from the sentence "A law enforcement official or agency … may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in establishing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally.

Bill sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said the intent is to clarify that "this bill prohibits racial profiling in any form." Bill opponents had argued that the word "solely" allowed officers to base their reasonable suspicion on race and color as long as it wasn't just one of them.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...nges29-ON.html

Consider the following. An officer in a town very close to the border sees an aging pickup truck that is being driven by an unshaven, sketchy looking Mexican. In the back are several others, all dressed in more or less ratty clothes that definitely look like they came from Mexico (no brand names, cowboy boots, etc. etc.). Now it's very fair to say that he is not profiling them based on race, right. After all, they look exactly like just about all illegals look. So he stops them and questions them and asks them for their 'proof of status' and so forth, and maybe they have it and maybe they don't.

But consider what would happen if everyone in that truck was WHITE. Do you think the officer would stop them with the same suspicions? Racial profiling isn't always about using race to stop and question people, it's also about race being the reason you are NOT stopping and questioning people. Do you see the distinction?

dinopoker · 04-30-2010, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

if "immigrant reform" = amnesty, i have no interest in that. my version of immigration reform would first to get control of and secure the southern border and exert our sovereignty as citizens over this country. secondly, anyone who is currently in the usa illegally can never become a citizen.

GWB's own attorney general basically said on Larry King that this is a totally impractical notion. Without some way for the illegals to get on a path to be legitimate they'll just stay illegal and there are way way way too many for the enforcement arms of the government to do anything about it. I mean they might catch a few thousand - even a few hundred thousand but that doesn't even scratch the surface of a number like 12,000,000.

Quote:

thirdly, i would allow legal immigration/naturalization along the lines of immigration policy in the first half of the 20th century where quotas were established for entry into the country of between 2-3% of that nationality already in the country per year as long as the immigrants learned english and had a 7 year waiting period. don't lefties just love quotas? fourthly, i would allow the dept of commerce to issue temporary work visas on a basis of the usa economy's need for people to come here, not on basis of the desires of the citizens of mexico, or any other nation. those visa holders could earn a living here as long as the paid taxes and kept their noses clean.

Seems like you've thought this through a lot. You seem to forget though that the current problem exists because of the desires of the citizens of Mexico. Unless you can change their desires they are going to keep coming and coming and coming, and the only way for that to happen is for Mexico to be roughly equal to the USA in terms of economic opportunity (like Canada). Any plan that doesn't at least consider that is untenable.

Consider the situation in East / West Germany not so long ago. The Soviets built a wall complete with automatic machine guns, concertina wire and land mines and people STILL kept trying to cross it. Why? Because where they lived sucked and the place on the other side didn't, pure and simple.

Montius · 04-30-2010, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

Consider the following. An officer in a town very close to the border sees an aging pickup truck that is being driven by an unshaven, sketchy looking Mexican. In the back are several others, all dressed in more or less ratty clothes that definitely look like they came from Mexico (no brand names, cowboy boots, etc. etc.). Now it's very fair to say that he is not profiling them based on race, right. After all, they look exactly like just about all illegals look. So he stops them and questions them and asks them for their 'proof of status' and so forth, and maybe they have it and maybe they don't.

But consider what would happen if everyone in that truck was WHITE. Do you think the officer would stop them with the same suspicions? Racial profiling isn't always about using race to stop and question people, it's also about race being the reason you are NOT stopping and questioning people. Do you see the distinction?

"The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status."

Idk if it is illegal to ride in the back of a pickup in AZ. If it is not, why is this officer in your "consider the following" hypothetical pulling them over to begin with?

dinopoker · 04-30-2010, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montius

"The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status."

Idk if it is illegal to ride in the back of a pickup in AZ. If it is not, why is this officer in your "consider the following" hypothetical pulling them over to begin with?

He's pulling them over because of suspicion that they are illegal. That's permitted (and even required) under this law.

Montius · 04-30-2010, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

He's pulling them over because of suspicion that they are illegal. That's permitted (and even required) under this law.

Suspicion based on what?

Relevant:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/raleighw...ation-19380162

daveT · 04-30-2010, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

Seems like you've thought this through a lot. You seem to forget though that the current problem exists because of the desires of the citizens of Mexico. Unless you can change their desires they are going to keep coming and coming and coming, and the only way for that to happen is for Mexico to be roughly equal to the USA in terms of economic opportunity (like Canada). Any plan that doesn't at least consider that is untenable.

It is also the desires of our own corporations wanting slave labor and their willingness to break the law and pay $3/hr. Of course I am also racist because I am against slavery, which was made illgal 150 years ago, and this prevents honest brown people from working.

DVaut1 · 04-30-2010, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montius

And this reasonable suspicion cannot be based on ethnicity as per specifically outlined in the law. IOW they cannot just stop a person because they are brown. If the lawful contact is non-custodial, the person is not required to answer any questions.

But vhawk's question was what would constitute reasonable suspicion if not race. He didn't ask what wouldn't constitute reasonable suspicion.

That's what led you to say "probably failing to provide ID while detained", but as we've belabored now, that's getting the order of events inverse.

So what would constitute reasonable suspicion if not race?

Answered here, maybe?:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montius

Suspicion based on what?

Relevant:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/raleighw...ation-19380162

The cited example: a guy is speeding, with 9 or 10 people are packed into a sedan, and the driver flees on foot when attempted to be pulled over

So yeah, why the change in the law, again? Cops already had the right to stop people for speeding and putting more people into a car than capacity. Again:

Quote:

Well, to be fair, I didnt ask for non-examples. What constitutes as reasonable suspicion NOW, under this new law, that did not already under previous laws?

DVaut1 · 04-30-2010, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montius

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...nges29-ON.html

This whole article should be read for the bewildering-ness of Arizona:

Quote:

The Arizona House approved several new changes to Arizona's new immigration law. The changes still need final approval from the Senate before being passed along to the governor. If Gov. Jan Brewer supports them, they would go into effect at the same time the new law would.

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.

The word "solely" would be eliminated from the sentence "A law enforcement official or agency … may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in establishing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally.

K, that's a less onerous law, I guess...

Quote:

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said those two changes help clarify the bill, and lighten its impact somewhat. But she called a third change "frightening."

That change clarifies that a police officer responding to city ordinance violations would also be required to determine the immigration status
of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. City ordinance violations vary by municipality but could include things like loud parties, barking dogs, cars on blocks in the yard or too many renters.

Bill supporters say the addition of the word "ordinance" does not change anything because under the signed law, officers could question the legal status of anyone they come into lawful contact with, whether that lawful contact related to a law or an ordinance.

lol wat. That's what's changing!

Seems like in totality, Change 1&2 are to lessen the bad PR, while Change 3 essentially gets Arizona back their draconian authority. No more mere "lawful contact", but if there's a barking dog nearby...

DVaut1 · 04-30-2010, 07:15 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_558137.html

Quote:

SAN DIEGO (AP)-- Rep. Duncan Hunter said he would support deporting U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, adding that "it takes more than walking across the border to be an American citizen."

The San Diego-area Republican congressman spoke Saturday at a video recorded tea party rally in Ramona. Hunter was asked by someone in the crowd if he backed deporting natural-born American citizens who are the children of illegal immigrants.

"I would have to, yes," Hunter said.

Hunter said in the video that some of his critics believe his stance is mean-spirited.

"And we're not being mean. We're just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen," he said. "It's what's in our souls."

FREEEEDDDDDDDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

The tea parties are about freedom from big government, something something, blah blah meow chow.

Some American citizens just don't have the right kind of "soul" and are candidates for deportation imo.

Montius · 04-30-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

But vhawk's question was what would constitute reasonable suspicion if not race. He didn't ask what wouldn't constitute reasonable suspicion.

That's what led you to say "probably failing to provide ID while detained", but as we've belabored now, that's getting the order of events inverse.

So what would constitute reasonable suspicion if not race?

Answered here, maybe?:

The cited example: a guy is speeding, with 9 or 10 people are packed into a sedan, and the driver flees on foot when attempted to be pulled over

So yeah, why the change in the law, again? Cops already had the right to stop people for speeding and putting more people into a car than capacity. Again:

The change in the law is that the state LEO's are required to ask for immigration status of people being lawfully detained and when reasonable suspicion not based on ethnicity is present (meaning articulable facts and inferences).

I'm not a cop or trained in law enforcement, so I'm not a good source to ask for examples of what legally constitutes articulable facts and inferences. This does not mean that they do not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

This whole article should be read for the bewildering-ness of Arizona:

K, that's a less onerous law, I guess...

lol wat. That's what's changing!

Seems like in totality, Change 1&2 are to lessen the bad PR, while Change 3 essentially gets Arizona back their draconian authority. No more mere "lawful contact", but if there's a barking dog nearby...

Arizona is a 'Stop and Identify' state. If you are in question of violating an ordinance you are already required by law to identify yourself.

DVaut1 · 04-30-2010, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montius

The change in the law is that the state LEO's are required to ask for immigration status of people being lawfully detained and when reasonable suspicion not based on ethnicity is present (meaning articulable facts and inferences).

I'm not a cop or trained in law enforcement, so I'm not a good source to ask for examples of what legally constitutes articulable facts and inferences. This does not mean that they do not exist.

Yes, well no one, including the Governor of Arizona, can actually identify what's going to constitute reasonable suspicion someone is here illegally. But cops now have the power to figure it out on their own. I'm sure they'll choose non racial variables, right?

Also the change is still in the legislature, it hasn't passed yet.

Quote:

Arizona is a 'Stop and Identify' state. If you are in question of violating an ordinance you are already required by law to identify yourself.

You're required to state your name, and nothing beyond that. The proposed change to the Arizona law gives officers the authority to question the legal status of the people they're "Stopping and Identifying" for potential ordinance violations.

We were informed earlier ITT that Step 6.5, Section B of the "How to Not Get Too Harassed by the Authorities Due to this New Law: A Citizens Manual For Freedom" was to refuse to answer any questions beyond your name. Remember?