The Arizona Uproar

[Eastoff]

Why the eff can't #1 happen with Arizona law? Or, more specifically, why can't these illegal immigrants currently in AZ trudge on down to the immigration office and say "Tarjeta verde, por favor?"

Because there are currently limits on how many green cards are given, and you have to have family currently living in the US or already have a job lined up in the US.

 

[Denny Crane]

Have you never seen me post in a "make marijuana legal" thread?

No. But that's dodging the question. There's no victim in these "crimes" and people have certain Natural Rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and those sorts of things). These Natural Rights trump government and artificial laws.

Make sense?

 

[Eastoff]

No. But that's dodging the question. There's no victim in these "crimes" and people have certain Natural Rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and those sorts of things). These Natural Rights trump government and artificial laws.

Make sense?

Illegal Immigrants only pay 80% of their taxes and yet they go to our schools! They do jobs that poor Americans don't want to do for money and sub-livable wages so white people can eat cheap produce!

 

[BrianFromWA]

Uh I don't think you understand the law in Arizona. "IF someone looks like an illegal immgirant" they don't have to be breaking any laws. IE a pothead that isn't smoking, or speeding, just looks like a stoner, would be the RIGHT one.

That's blatantly wrong. The "probably cause" cannot be "because they look like a hispanic person." Racial profiling is specifically forbidden.

 

[Minstrel]

That's blatantly wrong. The "probably cause" cannot be "because they look like a hispanic person." Racial profiling is specifically forbidden.

So what is the "cloud of pot smoke" when it comes to checking people for papers? What correctly constitutes suspicion about a person being an illegal immigrant?

 

[BrianFromWA]

It's not dodging the question....I was responding to your "where's the outrage" in that much of my outrage at pot-smoking criminals (many of whom I enjoy reading on the board, here ) is on the pages of those marijuana threads.

If "Natural Rights trump government and artificial laws", which laws are illegal ones? (Serious question). I mean, military members are trained on what constitutes a "legal" vs. "illegal" order. How am I as a citizen supposed to know which laws of our country are trumped by Natural Rights, and which aren't? More importantly, which laws are the police supposed to enforce? And if the law goes against the Natural Rights, why hasn't it been struck down?

 

[mook]

And I haven't seen a single local economy "eviscerated" by this law.

Not yet. But that's the idea, isn't it? Make all illegals leave? Destroy the economy that sustains them, and if it happens to financially ruin some legal residents in the process, so be it.

It won't happen overnight, or in the weeks between when the bill was passed and now. But give it two years. Arizona's economy is about to get turned on its head.

 

[Eastoff]

That's blatantly wrong. The "probably cause" cannot be "because they look like a hispanic person." Racial profiling is specifically forbidden.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

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).

Just tell me, how would you have reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant?

 

[BrianFromWA]

As I understand it (not being there), it's ensuring that documentation is asked for in cases where law enforcement is already talking to you. If you're pulled over for speeding and don't have your documents, that's not good for you. If you're loitering outside a Home Depot and they ask you for your ID and you don't have it, it's not good for you. If you break into someone's home and don't have documentation...

I don't get the uproar. If racial profiling is prohibited, why are all of you aghast about this? The rights of Hispanic-looking citizens are already being looked after. Someone help me out, please. I'm trying not to be too obtuse, but this seems a lot more like "eff The Man" than any type of concern for people's safety or well-being.

 

[BrianFromWA]

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf



Just tell me, how would you have reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant?

Not sure. I detailed a couple of scenarios above. But since racial profiling is prohibited ("unreasonable"), what is there to worry about?

 

[speeds]

Erase stereotypes by wearing a mask to look like a stereotypical white person? How brilliant is that?

Its a joke, homie, meant to exaggerate the absurdity of it all.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's not dodging the question....I was responding to your "where's the outrage" in that much of my outrage at pot-smoking criminals (many of whom I enjoy reading on the board, here ) is on the pages of those marijuana threads.

If "Natural Rights trump government and artificial laws", which laws are illegal ones? (Serious question). I mean, military members are trained on what constitutes a "legal" vs. "illegal" order. How am I as a citizen supposed to know which laws of our country are trumped by Natural Rights, and which aren't? More importantly, which laws are the police supposed to enforce? And if the law goes against the Natural Rights, why hasn't it been struck down?

If there's no victim, there can't be a crime even if there's a law saying so. So which ones are illegal ones?

Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, truancy laws, laws against shining shoes on public property, laws against prostitution and pornography, etc. AND laws against immigration.

I pointed out in a previous thread that immigration laws are a relatively new thing, originally and still used to restrict immigration based upon Race. I don't see this arizona thing as any different, nor do I see why we should have animosity with or be at war against Mexico or Mexicans.

 

[Eastoff]

Not sure. I detailed a couple of scenarios above. But since racial profiling is prohibited ("unreasonable"), what is there to worry about?

Police were already suppose to check someone's legal residency before this law was in effect. They would hand illegal immigrants that commit crimes (beside living here) over to immigration services. What crime is there for standing in front of a home depot looking for work? You're taking away jobs from someone else? OH NO!?!

 

[BrianFromWA]

I have no animosity toward Mexico or Mexicans. Or French or Canadian or Zimbabwean people for that matter. But there are laws for French citizens coming to the US, both visiting and staying. HCP had to have documentation to get into Canada. So why is it that Mexican people get a free pass?
Is there a quota for immigration based on race now? How has that not been stricken down?
All of those laws that you brought up have (iirc) been deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure. I detailed a couple of scenarios above. But since racial profiling is prohibited ("unreasonable"), what is there to worry about?

Those are just words on paper, in practice we all know that people who "look mexican" will be pulled over for doing 26 in a 25, and all sorts of things that other people wouldn't.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have no animosity toward Mexico or Mexicans. Or French or Canadian or Zimbabwean people for that matter. But there are laws for French citizens coming to the US, both visiting and staying. HCP had to have documentation to get into Canada. So why is it that Mexican people get a free pass?
Is there a quota for immigration based on race now? How has that not been stricken down?
All of those laws that you brought up have (iirc) been deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.

Canada doesn't refuse to let people in, or require people to carry papers, or build walls to keep people out.

Scotus isn't infallible. See Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

[BrianFromWA]

if it's an illegal immigrant looking for work, he's committing a crime. If not, he's just loitering. Which doesn't have to be penalized (like doing 27 in a 25). Again, what 's your stake in this? That hispanics will be profiled and harassed like eastern European Jews in 1940? That police will run rampant with their new-found power? What?

 

[Minstrel]

As I understand it (not being there), it's ensuring that documentation is asked for in cases where law enforcement is already talking to you. If you're pulled over for speeding and don't have your documents, that's not good for you. If you're loitering outside a Home Depot and they ask you for your ID and you don't have it, it's not good for you. If you break into someone's home and don't have documentation...

I don't get the uproar. If racial profiling is prohibited, why are all of you aghast about this? The rights of Hispanic-looking citizens are already being looked after. Someone help me out, please. I'm trying not to be too obtuse, but this seems a lot more like "eff The Man" than any type of concern for people's safety or well-being.

I think the problem is that you're evaluating the wording of the law as though written and enforced by angels. Yes, IF police actually refuse to racially profile in order to decide who strikes them as suspicious, there's a lot less problem. However, those who are largely against this don't believe that that's how it's going to play out.

Saying, effectively, "Demand documents from anyone who strikes you as possible an illegal immigrant. And, oh by the way, don't racially profile," sounds a lot more like writing in plausible deniability than it does effectively removing racial profiling from the equation. A lot of cops are going to "be suspicious" of people who fit their image of illegal immigrants...poor brown people. Even if they haven't consciously decided to racially profile, many are going to automatically bias toward the stereotypical image of an "illegal immigrant." I don't really think it's even possible to do otherwise...there are very few other things that could be used to generate "suspicion" of this sort of thing.

Are you being overly naive or are those of us you're arguing being overly cynical? I guess there's no way to know.

 

[BrianFromWA]

My father was refused entry into Canada last week b/c he was taking electronic tools to fix hospital equipment and he didn't have documentation for them. Yes, they do require papers and they do refuse to let people in, and if you haven't seen the fence at the I-5 border I'd recommend a trip.

 

[Minstrel]

if it's an illegal immigrant looking for work, he's committing a crime. If not, he's just loitering. Which doesn't have to be penalized (like doing 27 in a 25). Again, what 's your stake in this? That hispanics will be profiled and harassed like eastern European Jews in 1940? That police will run rampant with their new-found power? What?

That Hispanics will disproportionately (or almost exclusively) be the ones asked to prove they "belong" here. And even legal Hispanic residents who don't happen to have proof of legal residency on their person when asked (which, by the way, is entirely legal in the US) will be pulled down to the police station due to not proving their status.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Maybe I'm being naive. But we're saying that we can't trust cops to do their job when it comes to illegal immigration law, but we can when it comes to things like, I don't know, domestic disputes or speeding or murder? Are hispanic people in AZ unfairly targeted for speeding? Obviously they're not unfairly targeted for fraudulent employment verification, since a whole bunch of illegals were just found on an audit at that supermarket chain.

 

[Eastoff]

My father was refused entry into Canada last week b/c he was taking electronic tools to fix hospital equipment and he didn't have documentation for them. Yes, they do require papers and they do refuse to let people in, and if you haven't seen the fence at the I-5 border I'd recommend a trip.

You can go up through Maine in the wilderness, much like the dessert of the Arizona border.

As far as immigration limits, I believe it is based on country, not race/ethnicity.

 

[Eastoff]

That Hispanics will disproportionately (or almost exclusively) be the ones asked to prove they "belong" here. And even legal Hispanic residents who don't happen to have proof of legal residency on their person when asked (which, by the way, is entirely legal in the US) will be pulled down to the police station due to not proving their status.

It's their fault for not wearing their Yellow star everywhere they go!

 

[BrianFromWA]

gotcha.

So if (to use your example) the citizens of New Brunswick kept asking the Canadian government for border enforcement b/c the Down Easters were setting up drug runs, killing ranchers, and generally causing problems in their area, you think the Canadians would just let it happen?

 

[Minstrel]

Maybe I'm being naive. But we're saying that we can't trust cops to do their job when it comes to illegal immigration law, but we can when it comes to things like, I don't know, domestic disputes or speeding or murder?

I think we can't trust the cops (or anyone) to enforce laws that are so heavily influenced by prejudices. What an illegal immigrant looks like, what seems suspiciously illegal immigrant-ish are fundamentally different questions from "Was this person driving faster than the legal limit?" or "Is there forensic evidence that this person took the life of another?"

Are hispanic people in AZ unfairly targeted for speeding?

I have no idea, but whether someone is speeding can be evaluated without having to appeal to an officer's world view.

 

[Eastoff]

gotcha.

So if (to use your example) the citizens of New Brunswick kept asking the Canadian government for border enforcement b/c the Down Easters were setting up drug runs, killing ranchers, and generally causing problems in their area, you think the Canadians would just let it happen?

Yes, and I can just imagine all the asian/african americans/latinos complaining about white canadians causing so much trouble and asking for anyone that looks like an illegal canadian to be stopped and asked for papers...

But seriously I think the biggest problem is how can you tell if someone is an illegal immigrant. I bet Oregon police already would deport people if they commit a crime.

 

[BrianFromWA]

so the problem isn't with the law, but the worldview of the cops enforcing it? So if all we did was enforce the federal law, not the AZ law, and make everyone carry ID....then everyone's good with this? Except Denny, who thinks it's a natural right to trespass a country's border?

 

[Eastoff]

so the problem isn't with the law, but the worldview of the cops enforcing it? So if all we did was enforce the federal law, not the AZ law, and make everyone carry ID....then everyone's good with this? Except Denny, who thinks it's a natural right to trespass a country's border?

If it was just Driver's License or a similar thing, I would be okay with that. But I think, like I said, cops ask to see your ID anyways when you're pulled over or whatever. However you have the right to refuse to show it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

sure you do. And you get towed. Just like refusing a breathalyzer.

 

[Minstrel]

so the problem isn't with the law, but the worldview of the cops enforcing it?

No, the problem is writing a law that requires cops to make decisions based on world view. I don't think anyone should be empowered by the law to decide who "looks like an illegal immigrant" (or who "looks like a terrorist" to use another example germane to this past decade). Putting in extra metal detectors in airports? Doing random (blind in terms of the picking) screenings of passengers? Fine. Asking airport workers or police to step in on people they think looks like the people they're trying to find? Not so good...absolutely introduces the temptation and, many times, the actuality of employing prejudices built from stereotypes to enforce the law. Even if asked not to do so.

So if all we did was enforce the federal law, not the AZ law, and make everyone carry ID....then everyone's good with this?

What is the federal law?

Except Denny, who thinks it's a natural right to trespass a country's border?

I actually agree with Denny about open borders, though I don't know whether closing them violates "natural, inalienable rights."